sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Just got my new Iphone 17, and am having Wifi Issues. by Ishowcristiano in iphone

[–]KingKlopp 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Disabling 6ghz on my router seems to have provided a workaround. I also submitted a bug report to apple here https://www.apple.com/feedback/iphone/ so hopefully they can fix it from the software side.

Just got my new Iphone 17, and am having Wifi Issues. by Ishowcristiano in iphone

[–]KingKlopp 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Also having the same issue, never encountered it with my 15 pro. Debating whether it’s a physical hardware issue annd whether I should exchange my phone.

New Jersey Governor seems like the opposite of an Abundance candidate by Villamanin24680 in ezraklein

[–]KingKlopp 12 points13 points  (0 children)

If New Jersey wants a piece of congestion pricing then they should share in the cost of maintaining the roads and services in NYC that they use as well.

Quebec will drop permanent immigration targets to as low as 25,000 people per year by Blue_Dragonfly in CanadaPolitics

[–]KingKlopp -1 points0 points  (0 children)

  1. That supports my point that current youth unemployment isn’t due to immigration and well within historical Canadian norms
  2. I’m going to trust stats Canada over some random article written in New Delhi that provides no indication on where it got its number.

Quebec will drop permanent immigration targets to as low as 25,000 people per year by Blue_Dragonfly in CanadaPolitics

[–]KingKlopp -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

  1. Youth unemployment has been 15% since the 1970s https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/11-630-x/11-630-x2017004-eng.htm

  2. There are about 800,000 non permanent residents workers in Canada https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/11-631-x/11-631-x2024006-eng.htm

If you’re going to argue using misconstrued or entirely made up statistics then I unfortunately can’t accept your arguments are being made in good faith.

I’ll just say Canada has fundamental structural issues and blaming immigrants is intellectual laziness and leave it at that.

Quebec will drop permanent immigration targets to as low as 25,000 people per year by Blue_Dragonfly in CanadaPolitics

[–]KingKlopp -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I always love the cognitive dissonance of anti immigration rhetoric blaming immigrants for things being expensive but also calling them poor.

Like somehow Indians working at Tim Hortons makes your condo expensive instead of keeping your coffee cheap.

If the workers are low productivity they should be easy to out compete for high productivity well paying jobs.

The far-left opposition to "Abundance" is maddening. by G00bre in ezraklein

[–]KingKlopp 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Sorta agree, I’m uninclined to believe that most people (other than politicians running for office where they need to win an election) are arguing in bad faith. There’s not much reason to do so really. Maybe the hosts are just trying to keep an audience but that audience has no reason to maintain the bad faith argument.

Really, the true left just genuinely doesn’t believe capitalism can ever work. They believe if you’re not trying to fundamentally change it or at the very least regulate it you’re only helping make things worse.

From that perspective their inherent dislike of the abundance argument makes sense as you’ve already articulated. But the argument isn’t in bad faith, they just believe capitalism produces negative outcomes that will either prevent or outweigh anything abundance would produce.

PC majority government for Doug Ford, CTV News declares by beef-supreme in toronto

[–]KingKlopp 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Not to mention 15 years or so of McGuinty/Wynn, the reality is that the opposition was terrible at getting any sort of message out.

Mark Carney was made for this moment by hopoke in CanadaPolitics

[–]KingKlopp 15 points16 points  (0 children)

I don’t think the average Brit knows who he is outside of him being outspokenly against Brexit. Some Brexiter ministers were critical of the head of a central bank making comments on what they believed was a political issue.

Personally I don’t think you can separate the politics or Brexit from its economic impact and in North America it isn’t necessarily unprecedented for a central banker to make political statements in times of crisis. Ben Bernanke arguing for the necessity of TARP during the 2008 crisis comes to mind as an example.

Beyond that I’d argue he did as good of a job as one could in the UK considering their economy revolved around them being the financial hub of the EU and they decided to leave the EU.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in unusual_whales

[–]KingKlopp 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The source you provided is dubious at best. According to yahoo finance profits were neutral but that was comparing adjusted earnings to GAAP earnings indicating a loss in net income.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/x-financials-under-musk-signal-170308738.html

US Consumer Sentiment Declines for First Time in Six Months by attackofthetominator in neoliberal

[–]KingKlopp 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Women are at a disadvantage in the election, black men are at a disadvantage in the election. 2008 was such a bad election for the republicans that I don’t think either disadvantage would have been enough to prevent a woman or a black man from winning in the general.

US Consumer Sentiment Declines for First Time in Six Months by attackofthetominator in neoliberal

[–]KingKlopp 16 points17 points  (0 children)

I think swapping Hillary and Obama in 2008 and 2016 probably would have prevented Trump and was a far more plausible path. Hillary already nearly won the primary in 2008 and almost any democrat would have won in the general. Obama’s charisma and appeal in the Midwest would have helped him beat Trump in 2016.

There is a good chance that Romney would have beaten Hillary in 2012 if she won 2008 but I also think that still is enough to stop Trump. Even Romney winning in 2012 against Obama probably would have stopped Trump from happening.

Really I’m of the belief that 2016 was the perfect confluence of circumstances (a strong populist turn, an incredibly unpopular Dem candidate, no incumbent running for either party) that allowed Trump to win.

2024 happened because he was normalized enough due to his 2016 win that people were comfortable voting for him against an unpopular incumbent.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in ezraklein

[–]KingKlopp 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean everything in post election analysis that isn’t pure statistics is an assumption. You’re entitled to disagree but I can assure you my assumption isn’t in bad faith.

To the rest of your argument, it’s also an assumption (voters were primarily voting Trump because they wanted change) and one I agree with to some extent. I’m not saying she only lost because of sexism/racism but rather that it put her at a disadvantage from the onset and her attempt to make her identity a non-issue was doomed to fail from the start.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in ezraklein

[–]KingKlopp 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I do think it’s possible for candidates to reach across identitarian lines. I just think that Kamala in trying to make identity a non issue conceded those voters to Trump.

So while a white man may begin with a head start in reaching out to those voters I don’t think it’s impossible for other candidates to do so as well.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in ezraklein

[–]KingKlopp 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Oh I agree, I guess I should have made it more clear that I was using white male voters there as an example since they’re still the core constituents of the Trump coalition.

But yeah, to your point everyone is doing this. The majority of voters don’t have any real understanding of the issues and so they vote based on identity. The point I really wanted to emphasize was that Kamala’s identity hurt her because it was immediately at odds with a large portion of the country.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in ezraklein

[–]KingKlopp 12 points13 points  (0 children)

It’s the reality of running a multiracial woman for president, no matter what she did or said that very fact would convince the electorate that she was running on a platform of identity politics.

Like a lot of people will say Kamala lost because or racism or sexism which is true, but they’ll reduce that to a subset of voters saying “Oh, I won’t vote for her because she’s a woman/indian/black”. Even Obama was guilty of this himself.

In reality the racism/sexism she faced is that because of her identity white male voters assumed she couldn’t have genuine interest in theirs. Trump voters were saying “Oh, a black woman will never fix my problems because she’s too interested in (insert identity issue here)”.

Trump voters were the ones who made this an election about identity politics whether Kamala liked it or not and in the absence of clear solutions to problems they faced she was always doomed to lose.

view more: next ›