roscoe

joined 5 months ago
[–] roscoe@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Ban or severely restrict abortion.

Ban or severely restrict porn.

Ban or severely restrict contraception.

Ban or severely restrict divorce.

When do we start hearing them question the concept of marital rape? That shit was legal in every U.S. state until the 70s and not made illegal nationwide until '93.

[–] roscoe@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Is this lawsuit just about having the choice to use an ESG fund?

The article even mentions that people who aren't invested in an ESG fund are included in the class action with those who are.

Here is a link to AA's 401k page. Scroll down to "What are my investment options." It looks pretty standard. Options for index funds, self-directed where you can invest in any Fidelity funds, target date funds, and other options.

What kind of a bullshit lawsuit seeks to reduce personal options that don't affect anyone else. Or am I missing something and could one person's selection somehow harm others?

Edit: I read a little more about the lawsuit. I'm not 100% sure about this, but it seems like the complaint is; the people managing the funds use the voting rights from everyone invested to vote for ESG goals. E.G. if you're invested in an index fund the people managing the funds can use the voting rights of your shares to influence the companies in ways the lawsuit claims violate fiduciary responsibility.

[–] roscoe@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

As much as I loathe the guy, I think we all dodged a bullet.

If he died of natural causes last month I don't think the MAGAts would have rallied behind Desantis, or whomever got the nomination. I'm not saying they wouldn't have voted for them, just that the excitement wouldn't be there.

If this has succeeded, the supporters would have transferred and been even more pumped up. And sympathy from those weird fuck undecideds could make the difference, not just in the presidency, but both chambers of Congress, and for their policy goals too.

Riding the wake of an assassination the draconian shit they would push through could have been far worse than anything Trump would have been able to accomplish in a second term.

Take civil rights legislation in the 60s; a lot of what LBJ accomplished was credited to the national feeling after the Kennedy assassination. Would JFK have been able to accomplish all that if he had served eight years with public sentiment toward civil rights being divided?

It sucks that this is boosting his chances in November. But a martyr, a new figurehead, and a more energized base could have been far worse.

[–] roscoe@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

I apologize in advance for sounding like a dick here, reducing people to dollars and cents. But that's how the people we're discussing see us.

It's not the ones who don't have 5k and/or marketable skills that would harm the economy by leaving. If you've got something to offer and a company to sponsor you immigration is relatively easy. I've spent part of my career working in other countries, and I've known many others that have as well. What we have in common is we're all educated professionals with lots of disposable income. We would harm the economy if we left in larger numbers and stayed away en masse. Although some stay, for the most part we come home. It's nice to go home. If it's not nice to come home, we'll take our education and skills and stay somewhere that is nice. That's why it's called a brain drain and not a ditchdigger drain.

And then there are refugees. Countries don't take refugees because they want them. They do it because it would be inhumane to not at least have a process, even if many countries make the process as onerous as they can.

[–] roscoe@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

I honestly don't even think the people who came up with this are thinking about that. Like nifty said, these policies will create a brain drain that will be bad for the U.S. economy, including the assets of the rich.

This is just some christofacist shit. I don't think they gave a thought to anything else.

[–] roscoe@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Nominal is more than inflation so real is above 0.

Real just has to be above 0 for inflation adjusted wages to be going up.

I still call bullshit though without knowing where the increases are. All the increases could be in the top 10% with everyone else going down and only the average is above 0.

Edit: I was wrong, the growth is actually weighted toward the lower end.

[–] roscoe@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

I'm just one person and my sample size is small. But judging by the number of right-leaning people I know that send me stuff from RT and other similar places, and the number of left leaning people who repeat dispiriting talking points I see in those pieces (They may never vote republican, but their enthusiasm is certainly being sapped.), I would say the percentage is quite high. That's just people being swayed like you asked, not necessarily convinced to vote or act a certain way.

Again, I'm just one person, but from what I see around me Russia and its allies are winning the propaganda war.

[–] roscoe@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

I want to know what this is, but I'm not sure how to Google it. Can you give me a couple keywords to include with the name?

[–] roscoe@lemmy.dbzer0.com 35 points 3 weeks ago

Just make sure you finish on the Bach. Never finish on Debussy.

[–] roscoe@lemmy.dbzer0.com 20 points 4 weeks ago (3 children)

The planet is great. It's the fucking occupants that are a problem.

[–] roscoe@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I make a little more than double the cap. I'm in favor of increasing or eliminating the cap but that would double my check in the future. (Not quite, I haven't made double the cap my entire working life, but it would increase it a lot.) That would still help a bit because not all of our withholdings go to basic social security. Some goes to disability, spousal benefits, etc. Increasing taxes and benefits proportionally, which is the way benefits are structured now, doesn't solve anything.

I believe social security has a lot of value so I'm in favor of not just fixing the funding, but expanding it as well. But if you want to make it healthier just with payroll taxes they would have to be progressive, like income tax, without increasing benefits.

[–] roscoe@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Bilbo is rich and Frodo is a nepobaby.

 

I apologize in advance of this is too basic a question for this community.

I just learned about lexisnexis and went to their website to request my report, opt out of everything I could, and request my information be deleted.

Are there any other companies like this I should be aware of so I can make the same requests there?

If it matters, I'm in California and it's my understanding that I have a few more rights concerning this sort of thing than some others do.

view more: next ›