|
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.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On December 05 2024 16:56 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2024 11:45 Vivax wrote:On December 05 2024 05:12 KwarK wrote:On December 05 2024 03:24 Vivax wrote:On December 05 2024 03:16 WombaT wrote:On December 05 2024 03:12 Vivax wrote:
The US has two parties: One vows to steal for the poor, and the other succeeds in stealing for the rich. Steal what for the poor? Legally earned capital. That just becomes a videogame above a certain threshold. Can‘t even blame hedonists nowadays. Maybe ever The poor don’t have shit to steal in the first place. It’s why they don’t pay net taxes, there’s not enough there to tax. Not working on progressive tax models and use the money to lower the cost of living of low income workers is what I see as indirect theft. It‘s the issue with the mechanisms that make money multiply itself by itself like investments. Way more effective when you already have a lot. Forcing a legal tender that gets infinitely devalued at a rate that only the gov and central bank have control of, is the crime. Doesn't help that the cause of whole wealth inequality is precisely because there's a rogue monetary system and democrats blaming it on bunch of other stuff is just disgusting to me. (Well it's happening everywhere tbh)
JFK tried to change it. IMO, Its why he got executed in broad daylight. It was a warning. The next President who tries to screw with it gets executed in a heartbeat. The best plebs like us can hope for is a guy like Greenspan runs the Fed.
|
With the Board of Billionaires in the WH, you can expect to book your medical appointments via Ticketmaster starting Q1 2025.
|
|
|
I think Trumpublicans don't understand that "harder work" isn't always more efficient.
Also it's a bold assumption that LLM will find a businesscase, while in many studies, the productivity and quality with deployed LLM is declining... because people who aren't experts can't tell if AI is parroting BS, and people are rather playing with the tool, than doing their jobs.
WFH on the other hand is thrown under the bus, because one single study claims the performance of call centers was down 4% and the possibility that knowledge transfer is hurt because of remote work.
I don't really know how it's in the US.. but in germany..working in a call center usually is a job that requires ZERO prior qualification other than being able to barely speak the language expected from customers, and reading off a screen, selecting multipile choice answers to guide you through the call, ultimatively being about as helpful as a FAQ on the website, until the call center agent hooks you up with a supervisor's supvervisor and you get to talk to somebody who isn't bound to an algorithm.
|
On December 05 2024 16:45 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Trump's tariff threat continues to pay dividends as Mexico and Canada are now squabbling with each other. Trump can now play the role of Monty Hall and play "Let's Make A Deal" with both countries. https://financialpost.com/news/economy/trump-threatens-canada-mexico-go-own-wayShow nested quote +Sheinbaum then dug deeper, adding that Canada “could only wish they had the cultural riches Mexico has”, pointing out her country has civilizations dating back thousands of years. As I've said before, Canada is more of an economic zone than it is a country.
This is up there with the dumbest things I've seen said. I'm not sure you want to brag about it being a go to for you. You probably shouldn't expand, better have people assume than remove all doubt, but if making a bold statement that goes against all common knowledge you should expand.
|
It's a pretty common attitude to put way to much energy I to hating the nation you immigrated from in your lifetime. I don't think I've ever seen someone from a western country do it but it's a very common reaction to getting over missing the parts of your youth that you remember enjoying vs the reason you had to leave.
In Jimmy's case he wanted more money, so his hate for canadia is wealth based.
|
On December 05 2024 18:39 KT_Elwood wrote:
I think Trumpublicans don't understand that "harder work" isn't always more efficient.
Also it's a bold assumption that LLM will find a businesscase, while in many studies, the productivity and quality with deployed LLM is declining... because people who aren't experts can't tell if AI is parroting BS, and people are rather playing with the tool, than doing their jobs.
WFH on the other hand is thrown under the bus, because one single study claims the performance of call centers was down 4% and the possibility that knowledge transfer is hurt because of remote work.
I don't really know how it's in the US.. but in germany..working in a call center usually is a job that requires ZERO prior qualification other than being able to barely speak the language expected from customers, and reading off a screen, selecting multipile choice answers to guide you through the call, ultimatively being about as helpful as a FAQ on the website, until the call center agent hooks you up with a supervisor's supvervisor and you get to talk to somebody who isn't bound to an algorithm.
Productivity is measured for output per labour hours, so yes workers are becoming more productive.
It doesn't necessarily mean workers are becoming harder working to be as productive.
There's no obvious difference between Germany or anywhere else on this.
And everywhere in the world, unless it isn't capitalism based, a job exists because there's a demand for it. What you talking about is literally why a lot detest big government because it's one of the most inefficient form of organisations.
And who cares about what the research says, it's too slow for the changing business environment, just like it's too slow to do full on day to day stock analysis.
We have major corps doing huge redundancy.
There's too much emphasis of LLM as if it's already AGI replacing a full human role. Just the fact it's so capable make it possible to reshape a department around it, is more than enough as a proof it is here to stay.
|
On December 05 2024 22:45 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2024 18:39 KT_Elwood wrote:
I think Trumpublicans don't understand that "harder work" isn't always more efficient.
Also it's a bold assumption that LLM will find a businesscase, while in many studies, the productivity and quality with deployed LLM is declining... because people who aren't experts can't tell if AI is parroting BS, and people are rather playing with the tool, than doing their jobs.
WFH on the other hand is thrown under the bus, because one single study claims the performance of call centers was down 4% and the possibility that knowledge transfer is hurt because of remote work.
I don't really know how it's in the US.. but in germany..working in a call center usually is a job that requires ZERO prior qualification other than being able to barely speak the language expected from customers, and reading off a screen, selecting multipile choice answers to guide you through the call, ultimatively being about as helpful as a FAQ on the website, until the call center agent hooks you up with a supervisor's supvervisor and you get to talk to somebody who isn't bound to an algorithm. Productivity is measured for output per labour hours, so yes workers are becoming more productive. It doesn't necessarily mean workers are becoming harder working to be as productive. There's no obvious difference between Germany or anywhere else on this. And everywhere in the world, unless it isn't capitalism based, a job exists because there's a demand for it. What you talking about is literally why a lot detest big government because it's one of the most inefficient form of organisations. And who cares about what the research says, it's too slow for the changing business environment, just like it's too slow to do full on day to day stock analysis. We have major corps doing huge redundancy. There's too much emphasis of LLM as if it's already AGI replacing a full human role. Just the fact it's so capable make it possible to reshape a department around it, is more than enough as a proof it is here to stay.
You can say that until your internet provider throttles your speed to save cost (or until you live in a further out area where creating infrastructure is a net negative for providers). Then suddenly you'll demand that the "inefficient government" steps in to make your internet efficient again (or to build internet access for you to begin with).
And can you guess what made throttling legal to begin with? Ending net neutrality in 2018. Whoopsies.
|
Throttling has always been legal as the US has never recognized citizens having an inalienable right to a T3 line wherever they live.
|
On December 05 2024 23:25 oBlade wrote:
Throttling has always been legal as the US has never recognized citizens having an inalienable right to a T3 line wherever they live.
No, it wasn't always legal. Under Trump it became legal, but it was illegal before.
In 2024 the decision was reverted and it's once again illegal since April.
https://www.npr.org/2024/04/26/1247393656/net-neutrality-explained-fcc
|
On December 05 2024 22:30 Sermokala wrote:
It's a pretty common attitude to put way to much energy I to hating the nation you immigrated from in your lifetime. I don't think I've ever seen someone from a western country do it but it's a very common reaction to getting over missing the parts of your youth that you remember enjoying vs the reason you had to leave.
In Jimmy's case he wanted more money, so his hate for canadia is wealth based.
hate? Canada went from the greatest nation on earth and has declined to the status of an above average 1st world country. I grew up in an era when the standard of living improved by 25%. I won the lottery the day I was born. Canada's leadership used to be incredible. Now, it is average. I do not see Canada's leadership improving any time soon. This was a factor in my exit.
Canada's health care system is crumbling. The Ontario//USA border is littered with medical clinics that serve Canadians with cash. Quebec has a core healthcare services for people with cash. Ontario and Quebec make up 60% of the country's population. Many of the Good DRs in my family along with their friends are leaving due to the medical system falling apart. It is sad.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/private-surgery-hip-knee-replacement-1.6741461
Most people just pay outright for an MRI. An MRI has become a primary diagnostic tool for orthopaedic issues.
So, it was not just a wealth issue.
As far as "hate" goes i'd say its more related to wealth acquisition. I hate watching the working poor get crushed in Toronto when it used to be a place offering any poor hard working person entry into the middle class.
Canada used to be a great alternative place to live for hard working Americans. Unfortunately, it no longer is.
On December 05 2024 22:21 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2024 16:45 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Trump's tariff threat continues to pay dividends as Mexico and Canada are now squabbling with each other. Trump can now play the role of Monty Hall and play "Let's Make A Deal" with both countries. https://financialpost.com/news/economy/trump-threatens-canada-mexico-go-own-waySheinbaum then dug deeper, adding that Canada “could only wish they had the cultural riches Mexico has”, pointing out her country has civilizations dating back thousands of years. As I've said before, Canada is more of an economic zone than it is a country. This is up there with the dumbest things I've seen said. I'm not sure you want to brag about it being a go to for you. You probably shouldn't expand, better have people assume than remove all doubt, but if making a bold statement that goes against all common knowledge you should expand.
In 2015, Justin Trudeau stated Canada was a 'post national' state. I agree. And, it always was. Now, Donald Trump is offering Canada entry into the USA as a state. What a time to be alive! 
Canada didn't have its own flag until it was 100 years old. So, who are we kidding here.
|
On December 05 2024 23:33 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2024 23:25 oBlade wrote:
Throttling has always been legal as the US has never recognized citizens having an inalienable right to a T3 line wherever they live. No, it wasn't always legal. Under Trump it became legal, but it was illegal before. In 2024 the decision was reverted and it's once again illegal since April. https://www.npr.org/2024/04/26/1247393656/net-neutrality-explained-fcc
Throttling was legal originally, and has been since the internet began. It exists independent of the Title I/II common carrier debate. It's a function of the fact that a company is distributing a limited resource.
The same is true of electricity. You can pay more during peak hours, sign up to have your thermostat throttled during peak hours, and even suffer load shedding if the grid can't handle it. All of these are legal for the simple fact that you can't illegalize the fact that electric current isn't infinite, which is the same as internet bandwidth, which you should have taken 5 seconds to think about before you again try to explain why up is down in a country you thankfully can't vote in.
You were easily throttled for unreasonable use of a connection (ex. commercial activity on a residential line), or for literally going over the data limit in your plan. Or because it's peak hours. All remain valid as far as I know.
The fact that someone may live in the sticks is also unrelated to net neutrality - under no law or regulation that I'm aware of are you somehow "entitled" to any level of internet connection in the US built at a telecom company's expense. Sweden or Denmark or someplace said it's a human right. The US hasn't. If you build a house on an empty lot you're usually the one responsible for the public utility hookups also. If you had a phone line you could get a dial up connection. If you didn't have a broadband line, that's life. There's satellite internet. Which again the private sector has solved more effectively than laying fathoms of government invested fiberoptic lines - which the government can do irrespective of whether ISPs are Title I or Title II carriers.
|
On December 06 2024 00:01 oBlade wrote:
If you had a phone line you could get a dial up connection. If you didn't have a broadband line, that's life.
There's satellite internet. Which again the private sector has solved more effectively than laying fathoms of government invested fiberoptic lines - which the government can do irrespective of whether ISPs are Title I or Title II carriers.
There is also microwave radio tower internet as well.
|
On December 06 2024 00:01 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2024 23:33 Magic Powers wrote:On December 05 2024 23:25 oBlade wrote:
Throttling has always been legal as the US has never recognized citizens having an inalienable right to a T3 line wherever they live. No, it wasn't always legal. Under Trump it became legal, but it was illegal before. In 2024 the decision was reverted and it's once again illegal since April. https://www.npr.org/2024/04/26/1247393656/net-neutrality-explained-fcc Throttling was legal originally, and has been since the internet began. It exists independent of the Title I/II common carrier debate. It's a function of the fact that a company is distributing a limited resource. The same is true of electricity. You can pay more during peak hours, sign up to have your thermostat throttled during peak hours, and even suffer load shedding if the grid can't handle it. All of these are legal for the simple fact that you can't illegalize the fact that electric current isn't infinite, which is the same as internet bandwidth, which you should have taken 5 seconds to think about before you again try to explain why up is down in a country you thankfully can't vote in. You were easily throttled for unreasonable use of a connection (ex. commercial activity on a residential line), or for literally going over the data limit in your plan. Or because it's peak hours. All remain valid as far as I know. The fact that someone may live in the sticks is also unrelated to net neutrality - under no law or regulation that I'm aware of are you somehow "entitled" to any level of internet connection in the US built at a telecom company's expense. Sweden or Denmark or someplace said it's a human right. The US hasn't. If you build a house on an empty lot you're usually the one responsible for the public utility hookups also. If you had a phone line you could get a dial up connection. If you didn't have a broadband line, that's life. There's satellite internet. Which again the private sector has solved more effectively than laying fathoms of government invested fiberoptic lines - which the government can do irrespective of whether ISPs are Title I or Title II carriers.
ISP throttling was made illegal in 2015 under Obama. This came after a long legal battle. It also just so happens to be another example of Democrats working for the people and Republicans working against the people.
https://savannafibre.com/2024/08/26/understanding-isp-throttling-myths-realities-and-legalities/
https://cordcuttersnews.com/net-neutralitys-twisted-history-heres-a-timeline-of-the-open-internet-battle/
Basically you're completely missing the point. Government is not making things less efficient any more than business does. That's the point of contention here. I pointed to Net Neutrality as one of the major ways that government improves efficiency for the user. There was an attempt at a false branding of the government as an entity that is inherently creating inefficiency. This is a myth. ISP throttling is a perfect example of how free market capitalism actually diminishes efficiency in exchange for profit, and how government returns efficiency to the people.
|
On December 05 2024 22:45 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2024 18:39 KT_Elwood wrote:
I think Trumpublicans don't understand that "harder work" isn't always more efficient.
Also it's a bold assumption that LLM will find a businesscase, while in many studies, the productivity and quality with deployed LLM is declining... because people who aren't experts can't tell if AI is parroting BS, and people are rather playing with the tool, than doing their jobs.
WFH on the other hand is thrown under the bus, because one single study claims the performance of call centers was down 4% and the possibility that knowledge transfer is hurt because of remote work.
I don't really know how it's in the US.. but in germany..working in a call center usually is a job that requires ZERO prior qualification other than being able to barely speak the language expected from customers, and reading off a screen, selecting multipile choice answers to guide you through the call, ultimatively being about as helpful as a FAQ on the website, until the call center agent hooks you up with a supervisor's supvervisor and you get to talk to somebody who isn't bound to an algorithm. Productivity is measured for output per labour hours, so yes workers are becoming more productive. It doesn't necessarily mean workers are becoming harder working to be as productive. There's no obvious difference between Germany or anywhere else on this. And everywhere in the world, unless it isn't capitalism based, a job exists because there's a demand for it. What you talking about is literally why a lot detest big government because it's one of the most inefficient form of organisations. And who cares about what the research says, it's too slow for the changing business environment, just like it's too slow to do full on day to day stock analysis. We have major corps doing huge redundancy. There's too much emphasis of LLM as if it's already AGI replacing a full human role. Just the fact it's so capable make it possible to reshape a department around it, is more than enough as a proof it is here to stay.
The report from the link has no idea if AI is improving productivity, and no idea if WFH is deminishing productivity.
Yet it boldly makes assumptions.
Government doesn't have to be efficient, but reliable.
Since "Insurance" kinda is a hot topic right now, imagine a governmental insurance for everything, that only covers it's cost and doesn't work for profit.
You could literally pay for more claims.. if you would not have to satisfy shareholders.
Efficiancy has become to cheat the customer, to enshittificate the product
|
On December 06 2024 00:31 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2024 00:01 oBlade wrote:On December 05 2024 23:33 Magic Powers wrote:On December 05 2024 23:25 oBlade wrote:
Throttling has always been legal as the US has never recognized citizens having an inalienable right to a T3 line wherever they live. No, it wasn't always legal. Under Trump it became legal, but it was illegal before. In 2024 the decision was reverted and it's once again illegal since April. https://www.npr.org/2024/04/26/1247393656/net-neutrality-explained-fcc Throttling was legal originally, and has been since the internet began. It exists independent of the Title I/II common carrier debate. It's a function of the fact that a company is distributing a limited resource. The same is true of electricity. You can pay more during peak hours, sign up to have your thermostat throttled during peak hours, and even suffer load shedding if the grid can't handle it. All of these are legal for the simple fact that you can't illegalize the fact that electric current isn't infinite, which is the same as internet bandwidth, which you should have taken 5 seconds to think about before you again try to explain why up is down in a country you thankfully can't vote in. You were easily throttled for unreasonable use of a connection (ex. commercial activity on a residential line), or for literally going over the data limit in your plan. Or because it's peak hours. All remain valid as far as I know. The fact that someone may live in the sticks is also unrelated to net neutrality - under no law or regulation that I'm aware of are you somehow "entitled" to any level of internet connection in the US built at a telecom company's expense. Sweden or Denmark or someplace said it's a human right. The US hasn't. If you build a house on an empty lot you're usually the one responsible for the public utility hookups also. If you had a phone line you could get a dial up connection. If you didn't have a broadband line, that's life. There's satellite internet. Which again the private sector has solved more effectively than laying fathoms of government invested fiberoptic lines - which the government can do irrespective of whether ISPs are Title I or Title II carriers. ISP throttling was made illegal in 2015 under Obama. This came after a long legal battle. It also just so happens to be another example of Democrats working for the people and Republicans working against the people. https://savannafibre.com/2024/08/26/understanding-isp-throttling-myths-realities-and-legalities/https://cordcuttersnews.com/net-neutralitys-twisted-history-heres-a-timeline-of-the-open-internet-battle/Basically you're completely missing the point. Government is not making things less efficient any more than business does. That's the point of contention here. I pointed to Net Neutrality as one of the major ways that government improves efficiency for the user. There was an attempt at a false branding of the government as an entity that is inherently creating inefficiency. This is a myth. ISP throttling is a perfect example of how free market capitalism actually diminishes efficiency in exchange for profit, and how government returns efficiency to the people.
>every bullet point is labeled "1"
>every bullet point has only one sub bullet point
Tagged AFFORDABLE BROADBAND, BEST INTERNET DEALS IN KAMPALA, RELIABLE INTERNET SERVICE, RESIDENTIAL INTERNET SERVICES, UGANDA
How can anyone take seriously this reflexive posting of the first adbait dogshit spam article result from a duckduckgo search of "throttle internet bad help Obama FCC" from a Ugandan ISP trying to get hits to their website. My only hope is no one does. I would say Blumpf needs to build the wall ASAP but I'm already talking to one.
Throttling and net neutrality remain not direct antonyms. What do you think throttling means? Do you think it only means ISPs block competitors' traffic? When even the good people of Uganda's Fastest Fiber Internet Provider know more about the issue than that - if you had even bothered to show them the respect of actually reading their article on it?
Do you think the internet was a collapsed wasteland from the 90s to 2015 and from 2018 until now? What exactly happened in that 3 year golden age that sets it apart from the private sector hellscale of the other ~40 years?
|
On December 06 2024 01:15 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2024 00:31 Magic Powers wrote:On December 06 2024 00:01 oBlade wrote:On December 05 2024 23:33 Magic Powers wrote:On December 05 2024 23:25 oBlade wrote:
Throttling has always been legal as the US has never recognized citizens having an inalienable right to a T3 line wherever they live. No, it wasn't always legal. Under Trump it became legal, but it was illegal before. In 2024 the decision was reverted and it's once again illegal since April. https://www.npr.org/2024/04/26/1247393656/net-neutrality-explained-fcc Throttling was legal originally, and has been since the internet began. It exists independent of the Title I/II common carrier debate. It's a function of the fact that a company is distributing a limited resource. The same is true of electricity. You can pay more during peak hours, sign up to have your thermostat throttled during peak hours, and even suffer load shedding if the grid can't handle it. All of these are legal for the simple fact that you can't illegalize the fact that electric current isn't infinite, which is the same as internet bandwidth, which you should have taken 5 seconds to think about before you again try to explain why up is down in a country you thankfully can't vote in. You were easily throttled for unreasonable use of a connection (ex. commercial activity on a residential line), or for literally going over the data limit in your plan. Or because it's peak hours. All remain valid as far as I know. The fact that someone may live in the sticks is also unrelated to net neutrality - under no law or regulation that I'm aware of are you somehow "entitled" to any level of internet connection in the US built at a telecom company's expense. Sweden or Denmark or someplace said it's a human right. The US hasn't. If you build a house on an empty lot you're usually the one responsible for the public utility hookups also. If you had a phone line you could get a dial up connection. If you didn't have a broadband line, that's life. There's satellite internet. Which again the private sector has solved more effectively than laying fathoms of government invested fiberoptic lines - which the government can do irrespective of whether ISPs are Title I or Title II carriers. ISP throttling was made illegal in 2015 under Obama. This came after a long legal battle. It also just so happens to be another example of Democrats working for the people and Republicans working against the people. https://savannafibre.com/2024/08/26/understanding-isp-throttling-myths-realities-and-legalities/https://cordcuttersnews.com/net-neutralitys-twisted-history-heres-a-timeline-of-the-open-internet-battle/Basically you're completely missing the point. Government is not making things less efficient any more than business does. That's the point of contention here. I pointed to Net Neutrality as one of the major ways that government improves efficiency for the user. There was an attempt at a false branding of the government as an entity that is inherently creating inefficiency. This is a myth. ISP throttling is a perfect example of how free market capitalism actually diminishes efficiency in exchange for profit, and how government returns efficiency to the people. >every bullet point is labeled "1" >every bullet point has only one sub bullet point Show nested quote +Tagged AFFORDABLE BROADBAND, BEST INTERNET DEALS IN KAMPALA, RELIABLE INTERNET SERVICE, RESIDENTIAL INTERNET SERVICES, UGANDA How can anyone take seriously this reflexive posting of the first adbait dogshit spam article result from a duckduckgo search of "throttle internet bad help Obama FCC" from a Ugandan ISP trying to get hits to their website. My only hope is no one does. I would say Blumpf needs to build the wall ASAP but I'm already talking to one. Throttling and net neutrality remain not direct antonyms. What do you think throttling means? Do you think it only means ISPs block competitors' traffic? When even the good people of Uganda's Fastest Fiber Internet Provider know more about the issue than that - if you had even bothered to show them the respect of actually reading their article on it? Do you think the internet was a collapsed wasteland from the 90s to 2015 and from 2018 until now? What exactly happened in that 3 year golden age that sets it apart from the private sector hellscale of the other ~40 years?
Keep denying anti-consumer practices.
|
On December 05 2024 23:39 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2024 22:30 Sermokala wrote:
It's a pretty common attitude to put way to much energy I to hating the nation you immigrated from in your lifetime. I don't think I've ever seen someone from a western country do it but it's a very common reaction to getting over missing the parts of your youth that you remember enjoying vs the reason you had to leave.
In Jimmy's case he wanted more money, so his hate for canadia is wealth based. hate? Canada went from the greatest nation on earth and has declined to the status of an above average 1st world country. I grew up in an era when the standard of living improved by 25%. I won the lottery the day I was born. Canada's leadership used to be incredible. Now, it is average. I do not see Canada's leadership improving any time soon. This was a factor in my exit. Canada's health care system is crumbling. The Ontario//USA border is littered with medical clinics that serve Canadians with cash. Quebec has a core healthcare services for people with cash. Ontario and Quebec make up 60% of the country's population. Many of the Good DRs in my family along with their friends are leaving due to the medical system falling apart. It is sad. https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/private-surgery-hip-knee-replacement-1.6741461Most people just pay outright for an MRI. An MRI has become a primary diagnostic tool for orthopaedic issues. So, it was not just a wealth issue. As far as "hate" goes i'd say its more related to wealth acquisition. I hate watching the working poor get crushed in Toronto when it used to be a place offering any poor hard working person entry into the middle class.Canada used to be a great alternative place to live for hard working Americans. Unfortunately, it no longer is. Show nested quote +On December 05 2024 22:21 Billyboy wrote:On December 05 2024 16:45 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Trump's tariff threat continues to pay dividends as Mexico and Canada are now squabbling with each other. Trump can now play the role of Monty Hall and play "Let's Make A Deal" with both countries. https://financialpost.com/news/economy/trump-threatens-canada-mexico-go-own-waySheinbaum then dug deeper, adding that Canada “could only wish they had the cultural riches Mexico has”, pointing out her country has civilizations dating back thousands of years. As I've said before, Canada is more of an economic zone than it is a country. This is up there with the dumbest things I've seen said. I'm not sure you want to brag about it being a go to for you. You probably shouldn't expand, better have people assume than remove all doubt, but if making a bold statement that goes against all common knowledge you should expand. In 2015, Justin Trudeau stated Canada was a 'post national' state. I agree. And, it always was. Now, Donald Trump is offering Canada entry into the USA as a state. What a time to be alive! Canada didn't have its own flag until it was 100 years old. So, who are we kidding here.
See exactly what I was saying. There even is the classic disconnect between the things they are complaining about vs what they want to claim it is about. Making a post entirely about the wealth they had living in their country but "leadership" issues running such a golden age could be copy pasted for Vietnam or Mexico or India or Sweden from the people I've talked to about this. He's repeated constantly that he would be more wealthy living in the US and that's why he moved. You can see how much he hates he did that and now has to justify it to himself that it was a good choice even though he wishes "he could stay in the motherland". How shitty it is that people have to pay for Healthcare operations in Canada when he lives now in the only developed nation without universal Healthcare where he has to pay for health operations. See its not about wealth it's about moving to where his wealth will afford him better Healthcare. It's not about wealth it's about how poor people can't become middle class. He doesn't hate Canada he just can't stop talking about it and bringing it into every conversation even when no one talks back to him about it.
I can't wait to see what country next he will start hyping up to convince himself he should move there for a better life.
|
Absolutely seething after reading Tim Walz statement about the waste of carbon being put to better use as soil.
Can you please read the room you god damn idiot. A brief moment when the illusion of invincibility of the rich is broken, a consolation prize for any leftist feeling hopeless about our future.
No one knew this CEO's name before he was shot. He was not a cultural icon. He wasn't some kinda famous singer or actor who had a connection with the culture of our country. He was a complete nobody on the national stage and oversaw the process of extracting value from medical care at the cost of American lives. His company went above and beyond to be extra inhumane even when compared to their competitors. He made conscious decisions to push for even more people to die for the sake of profit and he succeeded.
For me, this is such a gloom and doom moment seeing Tim Walz boot lick to such an extreme. It is extremely conclusive proof how bought and paid for he is. This is a golden example of a corporate controlled politician.
|
Northern Ireland24261 Posts
I think for politicians at least, striding some middle ground between tribute and dancing on his grave is a reasonable compromise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
