American Politics Thread: The Hunt for Blue November

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

I've always been amazed at how underwear is something many people choose not to spend money on. Is there any item of clothing more important to your comfort?
Not that I wear Saxx or similar every day - but certainly having comfy undies is key.

There is nothing like transitioning from the ####ty Joe Boxer 3-packs that you have to replace more often, to a full lineup up Saxx-level underwear. One of the better investments to yourself a man can make. Trump probably wears stretched out tighty whities when he’s not sporting his nighttime depends (just to keep it in topic).

[GreenLantern2814]

I’ve been trying to buy a new package of underwear every paycheque for the last six weeks.

The results have been encouraging.

[squiggs96]

Originally Posted by New Era

You must remember that there is certain collective here that openly brag about spending $20+ for a single pair (why do they call it a pair?) of underwear. Blowing money on stuff like is crazy, but it's what some people like to do.

I didn't think that spending $20 on the material the touches my genitals was a lot of money. I may be crazy, but during the 8-12 hours a day I wear underwear, I would prefer it be comfortable and supportive. If choosing to spend $20 on Bjorn Borg boxers, instead of $5 at the thrift store makes me extravagant, then I guess I'm extravagant. Maybe you prefer having a material that's closer to sand paper. Maybe you like flopping around. Maybe you don't need any support because there is no flopping around. Maybe your wife thinks it's sexy that your underwear are grey and resemble sandpaper. Maybe you don't wear underwear because it's wasteful to get between your sweatpants. I'm not sure, but $20 on underwear seems like a reasonable price to spend on the piece of clothing that is closest to the most sensitive parts of my body.


I'm picturing you at Denny's looking at the menu and being disgusted that the T-bone steak you're about to order is the cost of 7 pairs of your underwear, one for each day of the week, or one pair for one of those 1% ers on CP.

[Barnet Flame]

Originally Posted by peter12

Who is buying an $8,000 hoodie?

Not me.

I'm waiting for the sales.

[squiggs96]

Originally Posted by peter12

On the weird rant about the $300 hoodie, if you are buying something like that, it often means that it was produced by workers in a country with fair labour practices and with better materials - hence the price. Maybe you don’t want to spend that money on a hoodie - neither do I - but the price/quality ratio is likely pretty good.

People’s attitudes towards the clothes they wear always bewilders me. In an age where sustainability and wage equality are both becoming preeminent issues, why wouldn’t you consider that with the clothes you wear on your back? The global fast fashion industry is appallingly wasteful.

Jeans and shoes are the biggest standouts to me. I have bought shoes from Aldo for $60-90 that wore out within a year. I bought shoes, on sale, from Allen Edmonds for $200 in 2014 that I still wear today. They are at the point I should probably get the soles redone, but $200 for six years is much cheaper than $60 every years for six years.


I buy 7 For All Mankind jeans. The first pair I bought was in 2002 and was around $250. I still have them and they look almost the same as they did 18 years ago. I usually buy them on sale, but I don't mind spending $200-300 on a pair of jeans when they last that long. Now, the boot cut jeans don't get any wear right now, because they look funny, but they may come back in style. I've had GAP and Silver jeans that were much cheaper to buy, but they wore out much quicker. On a longevity point, the higher quality garments can certainly be worth their price, and may even be cheaper in the long run, but I understand that not everyone can purchase clothes at that price. What I don't get is people belittling others for spending their disposable income on clothing they choose to. If someone wants to spend $20 or $100 on underwear, and they have the money, what's the problem? If that person can't make rent, then they probably shouldn't buy $100 panties.

[nik-]

I purchased a crate of silkworms and I keep a dozen of them in my pants to perpetually restore my underwear as I wear them. You people sound like peasants.

[troutman]

A 19-year-old with a van full of guns and explosives plotted to assassinate Biden, federal officials say

https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...sination-plot/

A 42-year-old Maryland man was charged Wednesday for allegedly writing a letter in which he threatened to kill Biden and Sen. Kamala D. Harris (D-Calif.).

[Roast Beef]

Originally Posted by troutman

A 19-year-old with a van full of guns and explosives plotted to assassinate Biden, federal officials say

Quote from the article

Police initially arrested Treisman, who was carrying identification cards for Washington state, California and Florida, for carrying a concealed weapon, discovering that he had purchased weapons in at least four states. Federal officials then allegedly found 6,721 images and 1,248 videos of child pornography on eight different digital devices, according to the eight-page detention order.

The child porn is the least surprising thing about this guy. I almost expect it at this point.

[direwolf]

Another win for democracy and a significant blow to the GOP's cheating efforts in Pennsylvania.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/1...natures-431794

The Pennsylvania state Supreme Court ruled Friday that ballots in the state cannot be rejected because of signature comparisons, backing up guidance issued by the state’s chief elections officer heading into Pennsylvania’s first presidential election with no-excuse mail voting.

The ruling is a defeat for President Donald Trump’s campaign and other Republicans, who had challenged the decision by Pennsylvania election officials, arguing that efforts to match signatures on ballots to signatures on voter rolls were necessary to prevent fraud.

“We conclude that the Election Code does not authorize or require county election boards to reject absentee or mail-in ballots during the canvassing process based on an analysis of a voter’s signature,” the state Supreme Court wrote in an opinion signed by six of the seven justices, including five Democrats and one Republican.

The seventh justice, another Republican, concurred with the ruling.

The court directs “the county boards of elections not to reject absentee or mail-in ballots for counting, computing, and tallying based on signature comparisons conducted by county election officials or employees, or as the result of third party challenges based on such comparisons.”

Already, just under 1.5 million Pennsylvanians have already submitted their ballots in 2020, according to the U.S. Elections Project. That’s a significant share of the vote in Pennsylvania, where about 6.2 million people voted in the 2016 general election.

The court concluded that there was no clause in the state’s election code that allowed ballots to be rejected based on signature comparisons, and if the state’s lawmakers wanted one, they would have included it.

“It is not our role under our tripartite system of governance to engage in judicial legislation and to rewrite a statute in order to supply terms which are not present therein, and we will not do so in this instance,” the court wrote.

[JohnnyB]

No doubt that will be spun right into the narrative that all the mail in votes are untrustworthy and should be invalidated. Many people in that camp will just see it as more evidence of the corruption of mail in voting and dig in deeper to their position.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

It’s crazy to think that poll workers should be comparing signatures and rejecting ballots based on a subjective belief that they don’t “match.”

My signature is always slightly different. I would always probably recognize it as my own, but it’s not identical every time. And... poll workers are not trained in recognizing handwriting, so it isn’t a determination they are qualified to make.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by direwolf

Another win for democracy and a significant blow to the GOP's cheating efforts in Pennsylvania.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/1...natures-431794

Another good thing about that ruling is it should have Gorsuch and Roberts onside with it. With their classic reasoning of if the legislature wanted it it would be in the legislation. Should be textualist proof.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

It’s crazy to think that poll workers should be comparing signatures and rejecting ballots based on a subjective belief that they don’t “match.”

My signature is always slightly different. I would always probably recognize it as my own, but it’s not identical every time. And... poll workers are not trained in recognizing handwriting, so it isn’t a determination they are qualified to make.

The whole idea of comparing signatures is idiotic for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is that unless someone is a trained expert, they aren't going to know what to look for to spot a fake or a match. A lot of people have variation in their signatures.

There are also some people with medical conditions that affect motor skills, and some that just never developed a consistent signature. There are a lot of people that almost never have to sign documents.

[djsFlames]

And how does one fake enough ballots to actually do any damage any which way? Would be virtually impossible.

[MoneyGuy]

It’s terrifying that the “greatest country in the world” can have such voter fraud. That’s a Russia thing.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Roast Beef

Quote from the article

The child porn is the least surprising thing about this guy. I almost expect it at this point.

Why are there never any plots to assassinate Trump? All the crazies are Trump'ers?

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Rutuu

Just wanted to give you props CPF for taking on the Alberta Energy gang. You made some solid points.

Cali started by taking the stand that we need to reduce oil production, like it or not. No more negotiation, it's time to reduce.

Jayswin correctly pointed out that the US is not reducing oil production, they are (effectively) reducing Canadian oil production with very protectionist strategies, while simultaneously running the taps wide open at home. And US citizens seem completely unaware of this fact (Canadians as well).

Cali then pretty much did a full reversal, by admitting that yes, the US has been protectionist, as opposed to trying to cut back. And then said Alberta should do the same. I am not sure how this view reconciles with needing to reduce, but yes, as far as each is in competition with the other, both sides should in fact be trying to produce as much as possible. The world is still using oil, so each producing nation should be working to get much of theirs out of the ground as quickly as possible.

Which is exactly what Alberta has been trying to tell the rest of Canada, but Canada is too stupid to listen.

Then you show up with the above comment, clearly oblivious to what actually transpired with this conversation. I am going to go ahead and guess that you live in BC, as you just did a perfect impression of the completely clueless, from a Canadian perspective, view of the situation that we have been hearing from BC for some time.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Why are there never any plots to assassinate Trump? All the crazies are Trump'ers?

Maybe there are, but the people planning them are smart enough to not get caught. One could dream I suppose.

[Enoch Root]

For clarity, I should add:

As consumers, we need to reduce. And we need to start now. (this was Cali's, and others, initial point)

As producers, we should be producing as much as we can, while the demand exists. This was what Cali then agreed to. And this is what Canadians just can't seem to grasp.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Why are there never any plots to assassinate Trump? All the crazies are Trump'ers?

Not gonna lie I've thought about it...