

Oh, exterminator, finally! Start over by the ficus.
Oh, exterminator, finally! Start over by the ficus.
If the weather is too shitty to bike, why would I want to put a delivery driver in those conditions.
I mean, I really don’t want to bike in the rain, but that’s no big deal for someone in a car, lol.
The fact that even with the fees charged to the restaurant and to the customer, the majority of these apps still aren’t even profitable, lol.
Yes. Those people consider things like this part of the “cost of living”, not the luxury that it is.
On average, people have more of an issue overspending than they do underearning. That’s why even among people making six figures, 1 in 4 of them live “paycheck to paycheck”, which people assume to mean ‘barely make enough to make ends meet’, but what more commonly means ‘deliberately chooses not to save/spends every dollar earned’.
Okay, now it’s $74. Now what?
Using ‘retard’ as a slur, not only for people with intellectual disabilities
That’s actually the one group of people I’ve never seen anyone call that, lol.
Almost certainly the same amount. When was the last time you saw a state, that wasn’t considered a swing state, flip during a Presidential election from the candidate expected to win it to the other?
This isn’t a good argument in general–you can call anything anything, even if it doesn’t fit what it actually is. This would be like accusing someone of being anti-democracy for opposing the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea), or anti-life for opposing the “pro-life” movement.
Whether the label is accurate in any given circumstance doesn’t change the fact.
Not necessarily, not in the US’s system for President, at least. If you don’t live in a swing state, your vote is literally a waste of time. Doesn’t matter who you support or don’t.
practically speaking, cities and towns would have to be able to sustain that high level of policing, which hardly anyone wants.
But it’d be temporary for it to be that high, no? Am I misremembering, or is this basically the way that NYC stopped being so infamously crime-ridden? I was under the impression that it’s not as aggressive now as it was then.
Hastily-googled, but this seems to confirm at least some of what I remember reading a while back: https://www.nber.org/digest/jan03/what-reduced-crime-new-york-city
I think there’s very little appetite in America to actually put a police officer on every corner. Nobody would like living in that world.
Yeah, probably. Was just wondering about it hypothetically.
After all, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, right?
You might want to do some more research and have sources.
I brought up a handful of VERY easily-verifiable, non-controversial data points, and just did some simple math. But, I guess, for the extremely lazy:
Assuming stripping defense down to zero (which again, is an absolutely absurd hypothetical made for the sake of argument, and making my argument AS WEAK AS POSSIBLE) and applying the entire $850 billion to the UBI price tag, you’re left with a yearly cost of $1.55 trillion. And even using the higher estimate of $6 trillion from the billionaires, 1.55 goes into 6 less than 4 times.
The only thing ‘wonky’ is your refusal to accept mathematical reality.
P.S. Telling me to “look at really good sources” for ‘it’s not universal if it’s not given to everyone’ made me laugh pretty hard.
Why the hell would we give the rich $12k/year.?
Because the administrative costs associated with making sure they don’t, will cost even more. That’s one of the main upsides of UBI–no means testing makes it have practically no ‘overhead’. If means testing were added, its price tag would be even higher.
Related, I’ve heard people argue against UBI by saying that it would just make people lazy and not want to work at all.
I mean, it’s completely unrealistic to think that this would not be the case for some X% of the population. It’s already the case now, with the welfare programs we already have, after all. What number that X is, is what’s unclear. People saying “nobody will work” are definitely wrong, though, lol.
It was almost 25 years after the St. Louis (maybe wrong city, it’s been a while) Crime and Control study proved that flooding the streets with more police officers only pushed crime into other neighborhoods.
Small point about this in particular, but isn’t the above evidence that this is effective at removing crime from an area? Why not do the same in the “other neighborhoods”, too, then?
Especially if you combine the above with what you described later to reduce recidivism:
the way to reduce recidivism to almost nothing is to provide good health care, good mental health care, and to teach people marketable skills, all in a safe environment.
Seems like a solid plan to me, and police forces would naturally/gradually shrink over time, to suit the overall crime rate as it goes down.
It’s not “universal” unless/until it’s given to everyone. Until then, it’s just another targeted welfare program, “offered to a select portion of a city’s population instead of all residents”, as your link says.
You can’t say UBI has been “proven mostly successful” without actually doing UBI, considering its main hurdles are related directly to giving out that much money to everyone. A UBI of $12000/year ($1000/month) for just all working-age people in the US (a bit over 200 million) would cost the government $2.4 TRILLION, yearly.
Even seizing the entirety of every US billionaire’s net worth (est. $4.5 trillion), assuming you could convert it straight across into cash 1:1 (which you can’t), and cutting defense spending (~$850 billion), the two most common ways I’ve seen people claim we can pay for UBI in the US, even if defense was cut to literal zero (also absurdly unrealistic), that still wouldn’t even cover the cost of this UBI for three years.
This seems reasonable, honestly.
The kid took a gun illegally across state lines
This is literally untrue at one end and deliberately deceitful on the other. Literally the only portion of that sentence that is correct and not misleading is “the kid”, lmao:
Pretty hilarious that the very first thing you retort with is both false and deceitful. People like you don’t even know the most basic facts of the matter, and what you do know, you deliberately twist with deceitful intent. You’ve got your narrative, and damned if you aren’t going to stick to it like glue, no matter what the reality is.
Thanks for proving my point so succinctly.
If you can shoot someone and get away with it - as in during the Rittenhouse murder
This was absolutely clear-cut self defense, and there is so much direct video evidence out there accessible to the public, including the whole damned trial, that anyone who still claims Rittenhouse “murdered” anyone in Kenosha is outing themselves as an ideologue who readily rejects inconvenient facts.
It’s not murder to stop someone who is literally in the middle of an attempt to kill you, and “he shouldn’t have been there” is ‘she was asking for it by choosing to dress that way’-tier apologism.
Aldi has cruelty guaranteed eggs
Uh…
Regardless of what’s being defended, this is a “poisoning the well” fallacy, and should be avoided as a rhetorical tactic. This particular example serves no purpose than the stroke the ego and sense of moral superiority of those on one side, and alienate those on the other, and create a divisive binary where there isn’t one, and shouldn’t be one.
Suppose someone argues that the solution is making sure no historical figures are diminished due to their race, not just during a certain month, but always, and therefore doesn’t believe that focusing on a single race for an arbitrary amount of time is productive. Well, OP would dump them squarely into the ‘enslavers and segregationists’ camp, where they obviously do not belong.
I’m reminded of my gay friends who hate many modern pride events because they feel they do the opposite of normalizing homosexuality in focusing on garish oversexualized public displays. They’d be called homophobes by the equivalent of the OP–isn’t that a bit ridiculous?