Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
The British Empire liked leaving its undesirables in other parts of the world and saying "Y'all's problem now!" to whoever actually lived there.
They did that with Australia too.
Edited by TobiasDrake on May 13th 2019 at 9:15:28 AM
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.Not really. The Pilgrim Fathers were Puritans who left Britain of their own volition on account of how the King's government wouldn't go along with their standpoint of 'it's a violation of our religious freedom that people who don't believe the exact same thing we do are allowed to exist where we can see them'.
Then they initially moved to the Netherlands, but later moved to the colonies because they felt that they were losing their identity and their children's moral compasses were corrupted by the, in their eyes, really nonsensical Dutch interpretation of religious freedom. Nonsensical in that it also applied to people who weren't them.
Angry gets shit done.
And their descendants infest American culture to this day. Thanks, Britain.
Yes-no; it was a mix.
Some were "encouraged" quite strongly to go via the 'justice' system of the time. Be it by actual sentences of deportation or some very sharp business/ contract law. (Or, in the case of a few of my family members... they were pretty sure the Guild was onto them about diddling their hands in the till and forgery to cover the diddle. It's easy to spin the yarn that you were unjustly criminalized... when you bounced ahead of the law, but were actually caught red-handed by your uncle who might, maybe, perhaps have definitely helped the problem skip the country — less hassle.)
Some were culturally or economically side-lined by being almost impossible to employ or house elsewhere. Jews, Scots, Borders (when you have been forced to play national hopscotch so much, both sides despise you), Welsh and Irish were particularly badly hit by enclosure and the rise of modern economic theories, not just the screwball English protestants or Catholics.
And others... left in high dugeon that nobody really wanted to start up either purges or a full-blown civil war for religious reasons again, given that most were still recovering from the last time we went nuts.
Or, you know... a mix of all of the above.
Edited by Euodiachloris on May 13th 2019 at 4:44:47 PM
Put simply, Europe in general and Britain in particular strongly encouraged their "undesirables" to pack up and ship off to the colonies, where most of them would hopefully die, but secure economic advantages for their parent nations in the process and make things suitable for a better sort of folk to step in later.
Edited by Fighteer on May 13th 2019 at 11:26:08 AM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"I say 'glad you're gone' but I can't blame them.
Apparently, the largest ethnic group who signed the Declaration of Independence (16 out of 56) were those of Welsh descent. Which doesn't surprise me in the fucking slightest.
Also, booting people off to the colonies was a common form of punishment. Protested against low wages and unfair labour practices? Sod off to Australia!
Edited by GoldenKaos on May 13th 2019 at 4:30:15 PM
"...in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach."Imperial powers: they really are the worst.
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.The USA was founded by a Ragtag Bunch of Misfits. For better or worse.
Edited by M84 on May 14th 2019 at 12:44:57 AM
Disgusted, but not surprisedApple had claimed that iOS users were technically buying apps from developers, while developers themselves were Apple’s App Store customers. According to an earlier legal doctrine known as Illinois Brick, “indirect purchasers” of a product don’t have the standing to file antitrust cases. But in today’s decision, the Supreme Court determined that this logic doesn’t apply to Apple. "Apple was attempting to “gerrymander” antitrust law"
The court is careful to note that this is an “early stage” of the case, so there’s no ruling on whether Apple actually does have an unlawful monopoly in the App Store. But its decision could have larger ramifications for customers who want to sue any app seller for antitrust violations, and it sets the stage for a major battle between Apple and some angry customers.
Apple v. Pepper claims that by requiring iOS users to buy apps through its official App Store and charging developers a 30 percent commission, Apple is adding a mandatory fee that developers logically pass on to customers. “A claim that a monopolistic retailer (here, Apple) has used its monopoly to overcharge consumers is a classic antitrust claim. But Apple asserts that the [iOS users] in this case may not sue Apple because they supposedly were not ‘direct purchasers’” writes Kavanaugh. “We disagree. The plaintiffs purchased apps directly from Apple and therefore are direct purchasers.”
In the original Illinois Brick case, a court ruled that a brick manufacturer couldn’t be sued by someone who paid a separate contractor to build a structure with those bricks. But “iPhone owners are not consumers at the bottom of a vertical distribution chain who are attempting to sue manufacturers at the top of the chain.” Apple, Kavanaugh’s ruling concluded, was simply using rhetorical tricks to claim it wasn’t a direct seller — and those tricks could let other companies evade legitimate antitrust claims.
If Apple does ultimately lose this case, it could have to repay anyone who was “overcharged” thanks to its App Store markup — or even open up the iOS walled garden. Apple has made other legal arguments to fight this outcome. It’s argued, for example, that customers are free to buy apps through other app stores on other mobile operating systems. But the Supreme Court explicitly isn’t addressing these arguments yet.
Apple did not immediately reply to a request for comment.
Wait... Kavanaugh was the deciding vote and sided with the liberal justices?!?
I'm curious to see how this plays out.
My musician page> The Supreme Court has agreed to take on an antitrust lawsuit against Apple, rejecting Apple's argument the iOS store's users aren't its customers.
Disney's recent purchase of Fox makes me wonder how long before they start getting hit with anti trust lawsuits,or at very least their size and market share becomes something of a concern,right now they're riding it high with Marvel's release of Endgame,but the good feeling won't last forever.
Edited by Ultimatum on May 13th 2019 at 5:11:18 PM
have a listen and have a link to my discord server
Quite long. The thing with the Disney/Fox merger is that both Time Warner/AT&T and Universal/Comcast are still bigger companies with way more influence. They are way more likely to face an anti-trust lawsuit than a company which, at the end of the days, sells only entertainment. And unlike AT&T and Comcast, Disney doesn't own the means of distribution.
Edited by Swanpride on May 13th 2019 at 10:16:24 AM
![]()
![]()
In terms of his personal politics, Kanvanough isn't actually that bad for a Republican Justice (damning with faint praise, of course). To be perfectly honest, a lot of potential nominees would be way worse to liberal policies. The pushback on him in particular was for, you know, the whole "possible rapist, definite hysterical liar" thing.
This is going back a few pages, but the $39.35 charge for a woman to hold her newborn after a C-section? That's apparently because a C-section requires an extra nurse on-hand
more than anything else.
So from that perspective, it kinda makes sense.
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"

Sort of. There's a lot of fiction mixed with historical fact in there. Yes, many of the original colonists were Puritans and related groups, who wanted to practice a very strict form of Christianity and were making themselves a right nuisance in Britain. They framed it as escaping persecution, because of course they would, but in reality it was more like, "You dipshits can go practice your little cults in peace in the Americas if you're so determined about it."
Other colonists were there to exploit the resources of the New World (a colonial era get-rich-quick scheme, if you will) and/or to escape the crowding and poverty of the Old World. There were also a bunch of Libertarian types, not unlike the ones you see today, who resented the tyranny of man over man. It was a mixed bag, mostly made up of people that Britain wouldn't mind dying in the wilderness, with some Crown-sponsored industrialists overseeing it all and reaping massive profits.
Edited by Fighteer on May 13th 2019 at 11:19:23 AM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"