Sailor Dave

This was my parents 1st day grocery shopping in the US. 🤣 Showed up to the store 30 minutes before opening & confused why there wasn't a queue forming at the doors. They step in & pass by the rotisserie chicken display. They're shocked at how cheap it is "These will be sold out in the next hour! We have to buy!" They immediately buy 10+ chickens (they left like 1 or 2, haha) & leave the store right away without buying anything else to avoid "running into other customers who want chicken & get mad at us for taking so many." They stock the freezer with chicken & go back to the store an hour later to finish shopping. The chicken display is fully restocked again. My mom cried & hugged my dad.

If the discussion is centered around "Who's responsible for people dying," the answer = Blue. Sure, Blue people are ALSO able to save lives as well, but each person literally has the power to affect their own fate; every person can choose to save themselves, or - with eyes wide open - they can choose to NOT save themselves & risk their lives.

@hellznobro @Harkmagic @kadmii1 @discordspies Absolutely. Doesn't change the fact that it's fairly unlikely to have a 100-0 score. Thus, voting red will lead to deaths

This is actually a good analogy and thinking they're pressing this red button is 99% of conservative politics.

Another one we use is "Jack of all trades, master of none" in a negative light aimed to put down folks who don't specialize. The original saying: "A jack of all trades & a master of none Is oftentimes better than a master of one." So intent was flipped: it's oftentimes more useful to have knowledge in several fields that are useful vs being hyper-specialized in one thing but sucking at everything else.

Old phrases we use wrong. I had no idea these phases were shortened. After listening to them, why do you think the shortened these phrases and flipped the meaning?

@jehanh4 @Tironianae Man = adult human male Woman = adult human female

@Tironianae Cool. Please provide the prevailing legal definition of man and woman. You clearly think there is one so please share it.

🚨 HOLY SMOKES. SCOTUS Justice Sam Alito asks ACLU lawyer "what is a man and a woman?" and they DON'T HAVE A DEFINITION. Alito's response is perfect. ALITO: What does it mean to be a man or woman? ACLU: We do not have a definition for the Court. ALITO: How can a court determine whether there's discrimination on the basis of s*x, without KNOWING what s*x means?! Omg, you can't make this crap up. Seriously.

@JohnMoulinCNR @Harkmagic @kadmii1 @discordspies And any one person voting Blue introduces the possibility of death being on the table in the first place, which is our point.

@Harkmagic @hellznobro @kadmii1 @discordspies Literally, the only case where death happens is 50% < red < 100% That's the only case which leads to feath

@kadmii1 @KUandUofAfan @Harkmagic @discordspies Clarify what you mean by "the original question:" are you talking Red button / Blue button, or Life Jacket / stop the flood?

@hellznobro @KUandUofAfan @Harkmagic @discordspies the fact you think that suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of the original question

If you read it then you would know I NEVER SAID that OP's analogy had anything to do with jumping in the river. My whole point was that OP's analogy of Red = life jackets & Blue = stopping a flooding river doesn't work as an appropriate analogy because it presents the flooding river as an inevitable bad thing that's coming that only Blue can stop when in reality, the river's only flooding because someone voted Blue in the first place. To better reflect the reality that it's Blue who puts themselves in danger, the better analogy would be to have an already-flowing river; Red = not jumping in the river, & Blue = jumping in the river with the prospect of drowning unless more than 50% jump in to form a human chain.

@hellznobro @kadmii1 @Harkmagic @discordspies I read it. It's why I responded. Nothing in the original meme has anything to do with jumping, and you trying to turn it into something it isn't is dishonest at best.

@KUandUofAfan @kadmii1 @Harkmagic @discordspies Read my post, Seth. My whole point was that OP's post is a bad analogy & that jumping vs not jumping in the river is a better fit.

@hellznobro @kadmii1 @Harkmagic @discordspies Nothing in the meme says anything about people jumping into the river. It just says: Vote blue and the river doesn't flood (i.e. no danger), and vote red the river floods (now a danger exists), but tou get a life jacket.

@kadmii1 @Harkmagic @discordspies They also only die by choosing to vote Blue

@hellznobro @Harkmagic @discordspies people only die if enough people vote red

He's explaining why OPs analogy isn't good. In the original poll, 100% Red = nothing bad happens, everyone lives. In this new poll, if 100% Red = river floods (bad thing) but nobody dies. It makes "voting Blue" an act that "stops the river" when in reality danger is only possible if someone presses Blue in the first place. If we want to keep the river analogy, voting Red = not stepping into an already-flowing river; voting Blue = jumping in the river to rescue those who decided to jump in the river. If the scenario demanded that infants would be thrown in the river & need rescuing, then sure, you have a moral case to push Blue & rescue. But if only consenting & fully rational adults could vote, then Red is the moral answer so as to prevent endangering your own life & therefore require rescuing & risking others.

@Harkmagic @discordspies clearly you didn't actually read the question

@hanksabunch @MentisWave And you have no concept of the effects of multiplying the globe's money supply by ×100s. I was using a kindergarten level analogy that any simpleton could understand to showcase the effects of currency inflation, but you're either a bot, an idiot, or a troll.

@hellznobro @MentisWave If you can't conceive of how global economies are more complicated then selling an apple for a dollar you have no business telling anyone their concept of economics is lacking.

This is one of those choices where anyone who gets it wrong should immediately and permanently lose their right to vote.

I'm defining "value" here as "purchasing power." I have 1 apple here that costs $1. Let's double the money supply instantaneously. I still have only 1 apple, but now everyone has twice as much money. So I sell apple for $2 because doubling money supply instantly = halving its value (purchasing power) instantly. The only way for money to "gain value" (purchasing power) is if we find some way to make apple production cheaper while keeping the money supply exactly the same. If it's cheaper to make something, it's cost goes down, but just for that thing where innovation has made it cheaper. Whenever currency amount is increased without any corresponding increase in available goods to purchase, currency value decreases. So say I magically double everyone's money instantly but also double the supply of apples as well, the price of apples will remain $1 (although the cost of all other goods not multiplied will increase).

@hellznobro @MentisWave "It will never go up in value again" said the man who can see the future inside of a hypothetical world that does not exist.

@blond_ish @OnlyBangersEth House cats probably don't since they get all the food they need, so they kill for entertainment. Street cats & barn cats kill to eat.

@OnlyBangersEth funny thing is they don't actually eat the rats

woman found a rat in her house and trew a street cat at it like it was a pokemon 🤣

Bro, this will not work! Why? Because now there's an extra 350 TRILLION dollars in active circulation when as of right now we only have a little under 2.5 trillion. You are multiplying the money supply ×140. That 1 million you squirrel away? The moment everyone magically receives their pile of cash, it'll only be worth a little over $7K in today's dollar purchasing power. It will never go up in value again, & will actually continue to decrease in value as time passes.

Everyone is saying red but the real answer IS blue in this case. Millionaire lotto winners make themselves poor again without fail, As long as you hold your million for a year before starting to use it you'll come out on top. Covid proved our economy and survive short term economic catastrophes fairly well. Press blue. sit on it, wait until the poors are poor again, after the investment rush has stopped playing jumprope with the DOW and then make your moves.

The reason why our wages don't inflate at the same rate as goods & services is because individual salaries are the most downstream in seeing the effects when our monetary supply increases, & that was intentional. The process: Step 1: Congress passes a big bill that spends money we don’t have (new roads, stimulus checks, wars, whatever). They need cash NOW. Step 2: The U.S. Treasury borrows by selling bonds. The Federal Reserve steps in and buys those bonds by creating brand-new money out of thin air (electronic keystrokes, not physical printing). Step 3: The government immediately spends that fresh new money on contractors, companies, government workers, and big banks. Step 4: The first people who get the new money (big corporations, banks, politically connected firms, and rich investors) spend it BEFORE prices go up. They buy houses, stocks, cars, and supplies at yesterday’s cheap prices. They win big. Step 5: That new money starts flowing through the economy. Stores, suppliers, and businesses see more demand and raise prices. Inflation begins. Step 6: Regular people (you and me) are still earning the same old paycheck and using the same old savings. But now everything costs more. Groceries, rent, gas, all up. This is the “inflation tax.” Your money quietly loses buying power. No vote, no law, just a hidden wealth transfer from you to the people who got the new money first. Step 7: Months or years later, your boss finally gives you a raise so your paycheck goes up by roughly the amount of inflation. But it’s almost always a little less than you actually need, and it comes way too late; you already paid higher prices for a long time. Bottom line: Inflation isn’t “prices going up evenly.” It’s a sneaky way the government and insiders get richer first, while the rest of us get taxed through a weaker dollar. The paycheck bump at the end just catches you up a tiny bit, but the real damage already happened. In a way you're right: Congress is responsible for it because they trigger the 1st step by spending money we don't have. But they can do this because the Fed was designed to allow them to do EXACTLY this: spend money we don't have so we can do stuff RIGHT NOW instead of what we used to do in the past: levy a tax bill, collect taxes, AND THEN we do stuff (build ships, make roads, etc.) without getting into massive debt.

Well the fed also has the responsibility of managing employment as well. If unemployment starts creeping up then they employ inflationary measures to make it easier for business to expand and hire. Inflation is a guarantee in an expanding economy but this balance is crucial. The reason why inflation is talked about is because our wages don’t inflate at the same rate as goods and services. That is unfortunately the responsibility of congress not the fed.

I got two more choices. Which one?

@RetailGaslight @RickRational @Kyle_C137 *debasing

@RetailGaslight @RickRational @Kyle_C137 The FED is the source of inflation though, not just the managers of inflation. The only way currency could inflate in the past was finding gold & silver & making more coins or debating the currency by diluting gold/silver amounts.

@veritasalways1 @mcgregormackenz @teaandabikkie Is there a Muslim prayer uttered while they are slaughtered? Then it's not halal, but it might be kosher, which is exactly like halal - bleeding the animal dry - but without the religious prayer over it.

@mcgregormackenz @teaandabikkie I think all chicken is halal though. I think chickens aren’t stunned beforehand.

Just got called a racist in a cafe (white Scottish owner) for asking if their chicken was halal. Me - “Is your chicken halal?” Her, proudly “All of our meat is halal, it’s better quality” Me- “thanks anyway, I’ll just leave it then” Her- “you a racist or something?” …

@TruthXVector @ZackStrength What monopoly would JetBlue & Spirit have made?! Were they the last 2 airlines in existence?

The government essentially said: "You must have a functional business model by changing any variables you want but NOT by creating a monopoly. Oh also, you dont get to steal money from taxpayers." There are so many other functional routes for a successful business model that don't use the 2 vectors above. No monopoly and no stealing, good luck.

so you're telling me spirit airlines was in trouble, knew they had to do something, and attempted to participate in the free market by allowing jetblue to acquire them. the government then stepped in and said, “no, you’re not allowed to participate in the free market, " denying the acquisition. so then spirit, knowing that they were about to fail, seeks a government bailout, only to be told, "no, you must participate in the free market” to which they were denied participation in. this doesn’t seem like free market capitalism to me.

@TroopaKing @bonchieredstate @marlaseraphine Not relevant; the whole case would have never been before a judge if the Biden DOJ didn't sue Spirit in the 1st place.

@bonchieredstate @marlaseraphine Fabulous. Anyway, JB had/has more gates than Spirit. Of course several of the Spirit ones in key locations would've been beneficial. Regardless, nice of you to omit the fact that it was a conservative judge who blocked the merger and that Spirit also refused bids from Frontier.

Nowhere in this article do they mention the Biden administration stopped a merger that might have saved the airline and that Democrats did a victory dance over it. This is the most pervasive media bias. It’s not the outright lies. It’s what they purposely omit.

@blkprofcct The point of the VRA was to prevent the intentional "cracking" of existing black enclaves into separate ones for the purposes diluting their vote, but it was never meant to create new gerrymandered districts from scratch on the basis of race alone.

@blkprofcct If those black communities are spaced too far apart or scattered around the state, it's not constitutional to create a gerrymandered district for the sole purpose of connecting all of those black communities together to make a majority-minority district.

This attitude is far too common & misses the point. If a state w/10 districts is ~33% Black than Black voters should chose reps in three districts. Anything less is undemocratic. That states with the largest Black populations are working against this is racist & authoritarian.