Reviving for the new D&D:
-ask or answer questions better suited for D&D than EE
-not intended as a debate thread; if people want to debate a particular issue feel free to create a new thread for it.
AUs_TBirD wrote:I'm an architect, and we've noticed the recent slowdown. Friends with relevant knowledge have reported that applications for new building permits have collapsed this year.
Please forgive the lack-of-knowledge ignorance, but beyond broad-strokes "economic activity," can anyone explain why is this a bad thing? I understand developers only make money when they build new stuff, much as a shark dies if it stops swimming, but in my experience, buildings do not evaporate.
Can renovation + infrastructure improvements not serve as well?
Basically it's bad because building more housing is the best way to relieve the largest source of pressure driving up the cost of housing, which is a major issue just about everywhere now.
H.P. Lovesauce wrote:AUs_TBirD wrote:I'm an architect, and we've noticed the recent slowdown. Friends with relevant knowledge have reported that applications for new building permits have collapsed this year.
Please forgive the lack-of-knowledge ignorance, but beyond broad-strokes "economic activity," can anyone explain why is this a bad thing? I understand developers only make money when they build new stuff, much as a shark dies if it stops swimming, but in my experience, buildings do not evaporate.
Can renovation + infrastructure improvements not serve as well?
Basically it's bad because building more housing is the best way to relieve the largest source of pressure driving up the cost of housing, which is a major issue just about everywhere now.
As someone with friends in the both the building and planning industries, my understanding is that the commercial building slowdown is obvious because there’s little demand. Lots of people want to buy houses but can’t afford to due to high interest rates. Meanwhile, building makes up a large portion of the local economy in many areas. It’s a loss of a lot of good paying blue collar jobs that have taken the place of factory work.
Mabye this goes here
Who determines who is on the ballot in each state - for federal elections?
Usually, you win the nomination by winning a party’s primary election. You can qualify for the primary ballot a few different ways:In some states, like in Missouri and Alabama, you just need to file with the state’s elections office by completing any required paperwork and paying any fees. Some states that require filing fees will waive them if you submit a petition — in Kansas, for example, you can qualify for the congressional primary without paying the $1,760 fee by getting the signatures of 2% of party members in your district.
In others, like in Illinois and Maine, you must submit a petition with a certain number of signatures from voters registered with the same political party. The required number of signatures varies by state. In Maine, for example, if you want to get on the primary ballot for the U.S. House you must collect 1,000 signatures from registered Democrats in your district.
Finally, some states, like Colorado and Connecticut, have party conventions where the party chooses candidates for the primary election, although unselected candidates can still qualify for the primary ballot by submitting a petition.
Smaller political parties that don’t hold primaries typically nominate their candidates through caucuses or conventions.
Which is all fine - ok but that means it is the states that decide who is on the ballot by whatever method they choose.
So it is a state's rights thing. Which means I don't see how the federal supreme court can take that away. if the states have the right to decide who is on the ballot then the feds can't say you have to have person X on the ballot. It is up to the state.
At least that is what would make sense to me so I am not sure what the legal argument is that 'states can decide who is on the ballot, unless they decide a way the feds don't like'
Republicans only believe in states rights when it's politically convenient. And that includes the Republicans on the supreme court.
Can someone explain why Congress just voted to send billions in aid to Israel? Aid for what?
Reuters says it was "$26 billion for Israel, including $9.1 billion for humanitarian needs".
The rest is mostly money which they use to buy weapons. A certain amount of the money they normally get from us is required to be used to purchase weapons from the US, and there is a provision that Israel may only use those weapons for its own defense (whether that provision is being followed or not is - of course - a matter of some debate). Another amount is for things like their missile defense system.
I don't know what specifically is in this particular "supplemental" aid package, but I'd imagine the terms are roughly similar to what they normally get.
Can someone explain why Congress just voted to send billions in aid to Israel? Aid for what?
In reverse order: To aid in their genocide. To funnel money to arms manufacturers.
Well, it's like how states spend gambling funds. You have a bunch of money for genocide stuff, then set aside a portion of that for genocide harm reduction and remediation. You know, like the billboards you see with helpline information.
LeapingGnome wrote:Can someone explain why Congress just voted to send billions in aid to Israel? Aid for what?
In reverse order: To aid in their genocide. To funnel money to arms manufacturers.
OK yeah that is pretty much what I expected. Such hypocrisy. One week to say Israel is doing bad stuff and then the next week give them money to do more bad stuff. f*cking politicians.
Anyone know where I can find GOOD reporting on the student protests?
I’m seeing tons of reporting that just regurgitates what politicians and university officials are saying. But I’m not seeing much boots-on-the-ground “here's what’s actually happening at the protests” reporting.
Here's the Guardian take on it.
Today’s episode of It Could Happen Here has an interview with independent journalist Talia Jane, who’s been attending the Columbia protests.
What's up with this thread of comments from super leftists saying NATO was founded by Nazis and full of terrorists? When/how did NATO become some boogeyman? I feel like the "too afraid to ask" meme.
Literally Russian propaganda, I'd say. It is far more pervasive that people realize.
The website cited is that of the Party for Socialism and Liberation, an American Communist political party that advocates for the overthrow of Capitalism entirely and praises Lenin and Mao. It's a 2004 spinoff from a group called the Workers World Party, founded in the 1950's. It's entirely untrustworthy (I say this because the methods traditionally used by parties of this sort descend more from Soviet Intelligence than from free actors in an open society.)
They supported the Russian incursions into Crimea, Donbas and Luhansk in 2014. They did not support the 2022 invasion outright, but instead blamed it on American and NATO policy, and the "plight" of ethnic Russians in Eastern Ukraine.
I definitely don't see Communists around every corner. But these folks actually are, and the fact that they are branding as "Socialists" is just one indication of a disturbing duplicity. They also have a history of unsavory political activism. They have ties to RT, as well, so draw your own conclusions.
There’s also a phenomenon among “young” leftists who are just discovering how evil the US is and therefore assume that anything that opposes the US or runs counter to US interests is therefore good.
That's been a problem for around a century now. But that also shows how much experience the Russians have to draw on, to cause trouble for other countries.
Not saying that the Russians don’t have a large and active propaganda network but the idea that they’re behind every single little bit of American wrongheadedness is the liberal version of QAnon.
They likely give minor nudges but most of the BS is 100% homegrown.
Thanks for the context, y'all. Much appreciated.
Not saying that the Russians don’t have a large and active propaganda network but the idea that they’re behind every single little bit of American wrongheadedness is the liberal version of QAnon.
They likely give minor nudges but most of the BS is 100% homegrown.
They do their most effective work when they just highlight true things rather than try to create fake issues themselves.
Not saying that the Russians don’t have a large and active propaganda network but the idea that they’re behind every single little bit of American wrongheadedness is the liberal version of QAnon.
They likely give minor nudges but most of the BS is 100% homegrown.
Note that I didn't claim they were behind *every* harmful propaganda group or fringe organization, just that groups like PSL are tied to Russia and quite likely directly used by them, given their positions, actions, tactics and so forth are classics in this kind of work. I specifically noted "I do not see Communists around every corner" and I mean that. But that does not mean that Russia is just dabbling in our infosphere. They are well-established at all levels and actively conducting information operations, have been for decades. Their goal is to cause chaos, and they operate on all parts of the political spectrum. Consider the broad and deep ties they have in Republican political circles, and then their presence on the far Left. That's not a coincidence.
An organization with direct ties (via a leading member) to RT is not "100% homegrown". That's the mistake that's been made for decades. Take a look at the Mitrokhin Archive, or the Venona files. Or maybe the US Dept. of State's 2020 paper on this topic.
The idea that an openly Communist organization that has vocally supported Putin and has ties to his overt propaganda network (and so quite likely deeper, covert ties as well) is *not* connected to Russia beggars belief.
So we're all potentially subject to confirmation bias and often we make this worse by restricting ourselves to echo chamber media. Let's say I'd like to try to keep from falling into this trap, but it appears to me that there are really no choices that can be trusted outside of the "liberal media".
My main news source is NPR and I listen to a few podcasts (e.g. Strict Scrutiny and Pod Save America), and of course D&D here at GWJ. Does there actually exist something where obviously left-leaning people like me can find legitimate news and information to counter-balance things?
AP and Reuters offer hard news on which everyone else bases their analyses.
The concern is over what the media deems "newsworthy". The risk is that you'll miss out on important stories by sticking to a biased provider. Fox chooses to ignore stories altogether that don't fit their narrative. I rarely see "liberal" media doing that.
I think it's fine to consume "slanted" news as long as you adjust for the bias when you're looking at the facts. If you're concerned that you're missing key facts you can look at an opposing source to get the "rest of the story" (TM Paul Harvey).
Pages