U.S. Postal Service Reverses Decision to Halt Parcel Service From China
The United States Postal Service on Wednesday said it would continue to accept packages from China and Hong Kong, reversing
dnyuz.com
--Patrick
[News] Face, meet Leopard.
- Thread starter PatrThom
- Start date
dnyuz.com
--Patrick
…and she still blames Biden for it.
Of course. Because it's a Broken System and he will Change It All so that only the Bad Ones are taken away.
Unfortunately I did read the article and that video is from when Biden was president. He made a requirement that green card holders needed the Covid vaccine. Trump got rid of it.
But this is how you become NOT poor. Like Scarface, but with eggs!
I hate stories like this, and I put ZERO stock in them.
Farmers will bitch and moan about not supporting Trump, feeing abandoned, etc. And then Democrats will put forward someone who is black, or Latino, or a woman… and the farmers will all go back to the GOP as fast as their poor, broken down tractors will take them.
It's already happened. Trump's policies hurt them the first time around. And here we are again.
GasBandit
Staff member
When the pain hits home, Republicans balk at Trump's spending cuts and tariffs
From reducing NIH funding to slashing USAID's food program to imposing new tariffs, GOP lawmakers are beginning to speak out — carefully — against some of Trump's actions.
Cowards.When the pain hits home, Republicans balk at Trump's spending cuts and tariffs
From reducing NIH funding to slashing USAID's food program to imposing new tariffs, GOP lawmakers are beginning to speak out — carefully — against some of Trump's actions.www.nbcnews.com
You know what would fix Trump and restore some checks and balances? Three term limit for all senators and a four term limit for representatives.
If these stupid assholes weren’t all desperate to keep a job that was never intended to be a lifetime appointment they would be willing to speak up when Trump does dumb shit.
Or, and hear me out on this one...we could elect people who care more about representing The People than they do about lining their own pockets. I'd be happy letting them serve 5 or 6 terms if they really wanted to, so long as their primary focus was on their constituency that entire time.
--Patrick
--Patrick
The power and potential for wealth caused by unlimited terms will corrupt even the best of us.
So, not to be the resident commie but... Under capitalism those most able to engage with society, and thus most able to do something like run for office, are those with capital. And so those that can become these officials are those with the most interest in gaining and maintaining capital. It's a self selecting system.
That's because Capitalism rewards capital. It's right in the name. What I am saying is that voters should be rewarding/selecting* for altruism.
It's literally in a voter's own best interest to do so, to select the representative most likely to actually represent them. But someone has apparently convinced voters that the primary characteristic to be weighed when casting a vote is "Which candidate is most likely to punish and suppress those I have decided are my enemy?" And even more concerning (to me, at least) is how many voters cast their vote believing their interests will fall under the Shirley Exception.
--Patrick
*selecting used not like "I made a choice" but as in "natural selection"
It's literally in a voter's own best interest to do so, to select the representative most likely to actually represent them. But someone has apparently convinced voters that the primary characteristic to be weighed when casting a vote is "Which candidate is most likely to punish and suppress those I have decided are my enemy?" And even more concerning (to me, at least) is how many voters cast their vote believing their interests will fall under the Shirley Exception.
Right. I know I posted that study earlier showing that accumulating wealth and power literally causes people to become less empathetic...but then, assuming voters continue to be primarily motivated by Altruism, a corrupted incumbent would become less appealing (and therefore more likely to be ousted) as they became more corrupt. I'm not saying this would prevent greedy people from being elected, I'm just saying that keeping [your] constituency happy would become the strongest determining factor towards whether you get REelected.
--Patrick
*selecting used not like "I made a choice" but as in "natural selection"
figmentPez
Staff member
In theory this is how voting is supposed to work. In practice voting for an altruistic candidate goes about as well as choosing an ISP that supports net neutrality, or buying groceries from a store that hasn't engaged in union busting. For most people the option just isn't there, and it's not available because the existing options are blocking competition.
Barring the hypothetical Kang/Kodos situation, every election is bound to have a "better" candidate.
Every time someone casts a vote with the intent that "...this will make things better for ME," society loses.
Every vote in every election (and when I say this, I literally mean EVERY vote, in EVERY election) should be cast for the option that you believe most benefits the ENTIRE SPECIES, and not just some specific minority.
...and when I say "minority," I of course am not describing "people of a particular race/creed/color who may have been segregated/discriminated against/etc" like we usually tend use the word these days, I am referring to a statistical minority. The people who are getting up in arms about DEI programs only see it as "you must meet a quota" and do not understand that the whole intent behind finding and encouraging the inclusion of "minorities" in hiring/decision-making is something that is ultimately supposed to benefit the majority.
We, as a society, happily go to movie after movie and watch a small, rag-tag bunch of misfits team up to defeat a larger, more organized/regimented army of foes (foes who all look identical, btw), and we enthusiastically cheer those misfits on as they learn to work out their differences and combine their strengths until they finally emerge victorious, but then we all leave the theater and complain about immigrants and "replacement" and how DEI is ruining society and I just don't understand why I'm one of the few people who can see the disparity.
--Patrick
Every time someone casts a vote with the intent that "...this will make things better for ME," society loses.
Every vote in every election (and when I say this, I literally mean EVERY vote, in EVERY election) should be cast for the option that you believe most benefits the ENTIRE SPECIES, and not just some specific minority.
...and when I say "minority," I of course am not describing "people of a particular race/creed/color who may have been segregated/discriminated against/etc" like we usually tend use the word these days, I am referring to a statistical minority. The people who are getting up in arms about DEI programs only see it as "you must meet a quota" and do not understand that the whole intent behind finding and encouraging the inclusion of "minorities" in hiring/decision-making is something that is ultimately supposed to benefit the majority.
We, as a society, happily go to movie after movie and watch a small, rag-tag bunch of misfits team up to defeat a larger, more organized/regimented army of foes (foes who all look identical, btw), and we enthusiastically cheer those misfits on as they learn to work out their differences and combine their strengths until they finally emerge victorious, but then we all leave the theater and complain about immigrants and "replacement" and how DEI is ruining society and I just don't understand why I'm one of the few people who can see the disparity.
--Patrick
I assure you, you're not alone.
This is partially culturally determined, though. America, mostly, but all of the West, focuses more on this sort of "ragtag band" and "strength through diversity" thoughts. America specifically has a very strong tendency to cheer on the rebels against power and strong individuals. Asian media tends to lean more heavily on other aspects. Individualism vs collectivism, etc. Heroes become heroes to protect their family/village/community, not because they're rebelling against an overreaching evil. The Power Rangers are one each black/white/Asian/boy/girl/jock/nerd/whatever, their original counterparts aren't.
Anyway - America was founded on a rebellion against a tyrannical empire. A lot of American like to consider themselves Rugged Individualists. Government communication and propaganda, nation-building around a communal "us", etc, have cemented that kind of thinking.
France, or Belgium, or China, or whatever, all have different histories which get reflected in their cultural sensitivities and accents. Hungary being the remains of an empire that was dissolved after WWI and with nation-building based on being the last bastion protecting the Catholic West against the Turkish/Muslim/Orthodox/etc invaders from the East is a clear example of this as well. Belgium was pretty much founded as a compromise between England, France and the Netherlands after a sort-of revolution by liberals, Catholics, French-speakers, Flemish, the Church, nobility and small bourgeoisie together who all had their own interests and their own identities - which is why the Belgian "national identity" doesn't get much further than "we're definitely not Dutch or French, and we're good at compromise and negotiating and trying to resolve crises by talking and more talking and then talking some more until everybody is so tired they accept a weak consensus".
Obviously we've been heavily influenced by American media (Hollywood in particular), but even so, in traditional Belgian stories you're more likely to be supposed to be rooting for the guy resolving things peacefully, while in American stories there's often the message that they're weak and ineffective and you have to stand up for yourself.
And all of this is obviously oversimplifying and in no way meant as America-bashing, quite the contrary.
Thank you, that's good to know.
I know America is traditionally one that tends to be more focused on "We rebel against tyranny," but currently America is also the one more likely to be "Deport all the furriners!/Took our jerbs!" so yes, there's been a bit of a cultural shift, at least as far as the LOUD ones go.
--Patrick
figmentPez
Staff member
In another TikTok video, that guy asks how he was supposed to know that Trump was going to do this. He complains that he doesn't get the news out where he is....
Dude has the internet, has TikTok, but somehow is incapable of reading the news.
"You hurt me, but I'm so sure you didn't actually mean it. Please take me back."