Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Maximum™]

Isn't that a south park episode?

[Random_Dragon]

I suppose then when WWIII breaks out the other side gets to find out why we can afford government-mandated SKSes and not government-mandated catgirls. 

[Starver]

...they found the shooter, already dead by their own hand. Which at least makes that residual threat of him being still out there, biding his time, no longer applicable.

I was worried that he'd have completely dropped off the radar (dead or alive) and continute to cause direct and lasting concern to everyone that he might yet pop up again.

[anewaname]

A different guy was found in Colorado (article)...some excerpts:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Colorado authorities said they are investigating following the discovery of a man's body inside an adventure park over the weekend that was armed with explosives, guns and ammunition.
===========
The sheriff's office said the preliminary autopsy report found that Medina died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head.

Garfield County Sheriff Lou Vallario told reporters that while the investigation is ongoing, it appeared Medina took his own life instead of committing mass murder.

A message stating "I am not a killer," was found written on the stall in the restroom where the body was found, Vallario said.

Apparently he died about 12 hours after the Maine shooter's body was found.

[Starver]

(Coming here, because I'd be double-posting on the UK Bunker Thread, but I was going to mention US things as well so might as well turn it around.)

US news spotlight: A 'certain ex-President' thinks that, next time he gets the role, he wants to deport all homeless from the cities into a "tent city" especially built beyond the cities' limits "until we can work out what to do with them" (mildly paraphrased, perhaps even more sympathetically than the original). Also, he wants to build new "Freedom Cities", without all that pesky regulation/taxation/etc stuff ...but I don't know how that squares with what he'd want to do with those who end up homeless on "freedom's streets". Sounds like a classic filmic prelude to something with trope similarities to The Purge/Escape From New York/etc, though..


UK news spotlight: Our government (or, at least, the chief of the "Nasty Party" element of the current lot in power) doesn't want our homeless in tents. They want them not to be in tents....


What a contrast. Or not.

[Bumber]

https://ctexaminer.com/2023/11/01/court-overturns-ganim-win-in-bridgeport-primary-calling-evidence-of-fraud-shocking/

[hector13]

https://ctexaminer.com/2023/11/01/court-overturns-ganim-win-in-bridgeport-primary-calling-evidence-of-fraud-shocking/

A local problem for local people, we’ll have no trouble here.

Bonus points for the incumbent having spent seven years in prison for corruption.

[Frumple]

Weird to call that fraud, though. Near as I can tell, the worst it could be is an election law violation that would have seen more, uh. Actual voter's votes counted. Literally ensuring more of the local area's voting population had their franchise recognized. The case found no indication of any malfeasance regarding the ballots themselves, just maybe how they were delivered.

No deception, ballot doctoring, or anything of the sort involved, just (possibly) an end-run done around a state law built to make it harder to vote.

[hector13]

The link I posted called it ballot harvesting, when election officials go to houses and ask people to fill in the ballot. It’s illegal in Connecticut (though apparently a long-running practice) but not elsewhere.

It’s Bumber doing his usual “Dem’s are all corrupt” schtick.

[McTraveller]

Is the new labor movement in the US going to benefit people, or just increase division?

I can't tell.

I also can't tell if it's benefiting the people that need it most.  For example, I think people that are already in unions don't really need to be flexing their power - I think we need people in low-wage non-union jobs to have better protections.  Health care and teamsters and UAW jobs getting in the $30's or $40's per hour, plus retirement, even at only 36 hours a week for 48 weeks a year is still over $50k/year with benefits.

The single moms making $15 an hour with no benefits at less than 40 hours a week... those are the ones that need help.

[hector13]

If they were allowed to unionize, they’d get that help. That’s what unions are for. Unions benefit even non-union workers, so just the existence of a union is going to be a boon for low-wage workers.

[Lord Shonus]

The single moms making $15 an hour with no benefits at less than 40 hours a week... those are the ones that need help.

They can go work in the unionized jobs for the higher wages. Which will gradually mean that all the local employers, even the non-union ones, will have to pay higher wages to keep staff. If a huge employer is paying high wages, you have to pay more to be able to compete for worthwhile workers. That's why so many rich people push antiunion messaging, because they're pissed at the greedy single mothers who aren't happy with their 15 bucks an hour.

[McTraveller]

What do you mean, "if they were allowed to unionize?"

They are "allowed" to - it just takes effort. Unionizing isn't from some magic union fairy coming in to rescue anyone.  I suppose if unions used their war chests to help people get by until they get union benefits instead of or in addition to funding strikes, I might think they are doing more to help the people they need it.

Also I don't know many single moms that can do union jobs - most of those schedules don't align with school hours, may require even cross-town relocation that isn't paid because "it's too close", and child care inevitably eats up all the extra union wage (have you ever looked at day care prices?)  So unless the unions can simultaneously increase wages for their "own" as well as help keep price pressures down for everyone else, unions are not really not the panacea it seems.

Basically it takes a community of people working together, not vilifying everyone who is in a different group... in-group/out-group dynamics are terrible. Bad enough on just neighborhood economic and neighbor-dispute scales, but even worse in international politics, as we sadly see in the news every day...

[Starver]

(...there really should be no positives or negatives if you are unionized!)

[Lord Shonus]

What do you mean, "if they were allowed to unionize?"

"I heard you talking union. Looking things up, you were late twice in the last year, so you're fired immediately."

Lots and lots of large companies make it crystal clear you'll lose your job if you even think about unionizing, and outright manufacture discipline records to make sure they have an excuse.