Can you show me where the EU disclose its compaign financing for the romanian presidential election? They've certainly been putting the finger down in the scales far more than the russians
418 karma · joined March 16, 2021
I can assure you that no matter how high the risk of fire, insurers will be willing to provide insurance on that so long as they are legally allowed to charge the appropriate premiums.
This could be solved today by not imposing arbitrary restrictions on what other people can do with their land without their consent.
And they will continue to be if there are never any consequences.
Stop bailing people out of problems they make for themselves and people will start learning to not make those problems.
Human beings are not stupid machines who see others put their hand in the fire, getting burned, then they put their own hands in the fire get burned, and then keep doing it over and over again.
Most will stop when they see others get burned, others still will stop when they get burned, and a small minority will stop once there is no hand left to burn.
Seems to me that a vague law is simply an invalid law. The rule of law requires the clear knowledge of what exactly is illegal, if that isn't clear then its simply a prospective law that doesn't meet the basic requires to be law.
Anyone that voted for a law that is later struck down committed an illegal act, and should be liable for it.
There is no technical or practical barrier to enforcement of most relevant laws.
The primary barrier for such enforcement is the same that causes some many and so vague laws to be created, political will.
Universal enforcement is not the purpose, selective enforcement is.
Personally i find the idea of deceptive advertising and breach of contract with no recourse to be wrong too.
How about we meet in the middle?
No one is forced to keep any servers online any longer than they want to, but if a game is reliant on such a thing, then they must provide such information and state upfront the exact date in which the game will stop working before selling a single copy.
That way would be buyers can decide whether it is worth it with that information in mind.
Facebook can show all the ads they like, and have a "pay to not see them" option too.
And they are wrong there too.
This is not a "Pay or see ads" issue, this is a "pay or consent" issue.
Fairly certain Hamas wasn't the one who shoved 2.5 million people in a tiny location with no way out.
That's not true.
Doing it by plane at a fraction of the time and cost.
That's not what he said, but you'll ignore it anyway.
If employees want to form a union, they are welcome to do so.
If employers want to fire everyone that is in a union, they too should be welcome to do so.
Plenty of states didn't have law enforcement powers, including the early US. Police is something that only really started showing up in the later half of the 1800s and even then only in certain places.
This tells me you missed the argument i was making.
The point isn't a specific urban-rural or Dem-Rep, it's the underlying concept of not having agency over what rules you.
The more powers you grant the state, the less powers you have, and the greater these issue become and the more important acquiring political power becomes.
Being enfranchised in driving the state is only important if the state has a significant impact in your life.
The lower the impact (read, the power) of the state, the lower the need to be enfranchised.
For your example: If the state didn't have law enforcing powers, the states policy on crime wouldn't matter much. You could just hire your own private police to protect your interests.
Because I fail to see any conceptual difference here.
Absolutely, and my point isn't about a "rural vs urban divide" at all.
It is a general argument and principle that can be applied to every action of government.
It doesn't matter if oppression is done by a dictator or by a Majority.
The problem is too much state power.
If you'd like a more concrete example, how about we look at the effects that these minority/majority impacts have had on the delegates sent to the presidential college?
Here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presiden...
As you can see you have several states that have always voted for the same party for decades.
For example, Alaska, Idaho, Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, south Dakota, Utah and Wyoming... Have voted for the republican candidate every single year since 1964. How many Democrats live in those states? These are literally millions of people who by virtue of being a minority have had exactly zero agency in who will rule over them.
On a more local level, how many regulations are voted on by people in cities, but will inevitably affect rural people? Or heck, any people who did not want those regulations?
For people being oppressed, who have no actual way to prevent their oppression, does it really matter if the oppression is being done by a dictator or a vote?
It does, but it seems you've missed.
Let me make it clear as day.
If there's a country with 3 people on it, where 2 of those people want to oppress the third, there is nothing that the third can do to prevent that oppression.
That is a perfectly legitimate outcome of a voting system, and one that occurs often.
>This applies to approximately 0% of people in the US. Yes there is a small proportion of people who are so poor they can never move away from where they're born. Most of these people happen to live in urban areas, not rural.
On the contrary.
If you've ever been affected by a law or regulation you're against, you've directly suffered from this in regards to that topic.
Indeed, the whole idea of "red states" and "blue states" that is common in US politics kind of shows it happening at a large scale.
For example I've recently seen news about parts of eastern Oregon wanting to secede and join Idaho, and the primary reason for that is that you have a minority (rural eastern Oregonians) who are permanently disenfranchised with effectively zero agency over the laws and regulations that rule over them, as a result of them being a minority in Oregon.
This is the problem.
>If democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner wouldn't you want more power in the state and elected officials, so they could protect the sheep?
On the contrary, for it is that power that is being used to oppress.
2 wolves and sheep deciding on what's for dinner huh?
Have you considered that the key problem here is the lack of direct control that people have over their own lives, causing these sort of situations where you have groups of people who permanently have zero effective agency over their futures?
I agree, giving people more voting powers just because they live in a certain place isn't the right way to fix this. But the fact that there is a problem is undeniable, and the fact that this inequality in voting helps ameliorate this problem is true as well.
The right answer here is to remove power from the state and elected officials, and return it to where it belongs, those being asked to pay for it either directly, or by being affected by it.
There is nothing as democratic as everyone choosing for themselves.
In the same way we should not have a vote to decide what's for dinner, and the winner means we all eat the same thing, we should not have votes on local and personal matters.
Democracy isn't voting, it's agency over what rules you.
Alternatively you can do what I do and use an aggregator like Macrotrends that takes that data and puts it together on a company by company basis:
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/F/ford-motor/finan...
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/STLA/stellantis/fi...
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/GM/general-motors/...
Just add up the "net Income" portion from 2013 to 2022 and you'll see the $168 billion i mentioned.
The inflation thing you can simply use a cumulative inflation calculator like this https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/calculator-c...
Between 2013 and today the cumulatice rate of inflation was 33.33%, vs the 34% in profit increase => stagnation
As for the mouthpiece thing, here is a quote on the about page from the link he provided https://www.epi.org/about/ :
>The Economic Policy Institute (EPI) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan think tank created in 1986 to include the needs of low- and middle-income workers in economic policy discussions. EPI believes every working person deserves a good job with fair pay, affordable health care, and retirement security. To achieve this goal, EPI conducts research and analysis on the economic status of working America. EPI proposes public policies that protect and improve the economic conditions of low- and middle-income workers and assesses policies with respect to how they affect those workers.
This is literally an organization dedicated to increase workers compensation. ie: a pro-union mouthpiece.
It shows, given all the lies you've been spewing all over this thread.
For example:
>Profits at the “Big 3” auto companies—Ford, General Motors, and Stellantis— skyrocketed 92% from 2013 to 2022, totaling $250 billion. Forecasts for 2023 expect more than $32 billion in additional profits [2].
None of this is true.
The combined net income of those 3 companies during that time period is $168 Billion, not $250.
The total combined net income in 2022 was $24.6 Billion, only 34% above the $18 billion for 2013 (in reality this was a real profit stagnation given the cumulative inflation over that time period).
And your "Forecast" is literally a Pro-Union Mouth piece with no actual source for it.
The reality is that this industry isn't doing well, their returns on assets have consistently been below their cost of capital, and additional labor costs won't help with that.
Why do you believe that guarantees are required? Or even that the return must be positive?
Because not spending that dollar on putting a guy on the moon could have generated 20 dollars elsewhere.