Postal Service to Impose Its First-Ever Fuel Surcharge on Packages (cnbc.com) 219
The U.S. Postal Service plans to impose its first-ever fuel surcharge on packages (source paywalled; alternative source), adding an 8% fee starting in April as it struggles with rising fuel costs and ongoing financial pressure. The surcharge will not apply to letter mail and is currently expected to remain in place until January 2027. The Wall Street Journal reports: Other parcel carriers, including FedEx and United Parcel Service, have imposed fuel surcharges, as well as a basket of other surcharges and fees, for years. Both FedEx and UPS have dramatically raised their fuel surcharges in recent weeks as the price of oil has increased amid the turmoil in the Middle East. [...] The post office has been trying to increase the volume of packages it delivers. It previously differentiated itself from commercial carriers by saying that it doesn't apply residential, Saturday delivery or fuel or remote-delivery surcharges.
Is packet delivery really a good idea? (Score:2)
Re:Is packet delivery really a good idea? (Score:5, Funny)
Packet delivery is really important. That is why we use TCP. Lost or delayed packets are resent to insure data integrity.
Re:Is packet delivery really a good idea? (Score:5, Funny)
I tried to save money once by having a laptop delivered via UDP... let's just say it didn't end well.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But TCP allows for packets to be disassembled and reassembled en route. Are we sure that the latter is getting done?
Re: (Score:3)
> Wouldn't I be better off having the package delivered to an Amazon Lockbox right next to or even inside of the post office, and then not pay any fuel surcharge?
You realize this is already a thing the post office does [usps.com], right?
You can also have items shipped to, say, a UPS store or have it held at a FedEx shipping hub for pickup.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
it's often difficult in big cities too.
i've long had similar difficulties with getting deliveries during business hours and had to opt for weekend pickups but for a long time the carriers facilities were in the suburbs and I don't own a car.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
This is illegal in Germany.
The article as about the United States Postal Service.
The last time they delivered anything to Germany was in 1945.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you not already have this? Amazon has local lockers here in drug stores, gas stations and convenience stores, most of which are open 24 hours. Most of the postal locations are also in drug stores.
Re: (Score:2)
I had something delivered to the local CVS by UPS once. It wasn't in a locker, it was just left on an unattended shelf near the front of the store. If I order something high value, I prefer to either have it delivered directly to my door when I know I'll be home. If I have to go out and pick up the damn thing myself, that kind of defeats the whole purpose of shipping.
Re: (Score:2)
You can of course have it delivered to your door as well. If you can't receive it at home, as is the case being discussed in this thread, then you can have something delivered to a locker. When you go to pick it up you tell Amazon you're there and they pop open the correct door.
Re: (Score:3)
If I get a $2000 laptop delivered to my home, they leave it outside the gate, a half mile from my home, in an unlocked box.
So what you're saying is that if I figure out where you live, I can score a free laptop?
Re: (Score:2)
Winning! (Score:3, Funny)
Tired of all the winning yet?
We were promised that we were going to be crying about how we couldn't take all the winning. I'm just wondering if we're there yet.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you crying? There's certainly some starting, but probably a ways to go yet.
Re:Winning! (Score:4, Insightful)
> I'm just wondering if we're there yet.
We've made it to the crying part.
Re:Winning! (Score:4, Insightful)
The families of the dead servicemen and servicewomen are certainly crying, although if you asked them I don't know that they'd mention "winning" as a reason for it.
Perhaps they need electric vehicles (Score:5, Funny)
US postal service should invest in electric vehicles.
Oh, wait. â¦
Re: (Score:2)
Japan's postal service uses lots of electric vehicles, both vans and motorcycles. Seem to work well enough, so I'm not really getting the target of your Funny. The YOB appointed a guy with a vested interest in destroying the postal service, and he seems to be accomplishing his mission.
Solutions? On Slashdot? ROFLMAO.
But what if we used email to make postal mail more convenient? A user-controlled linkage between email and physical address? Naw, that trick would never work.
Republicans are trying to privatize it (Score:5, Insightful)
And you can bet your ass that if or when they kill the postal service the private alternatives will shoot up in cost like you wouldn't believe.
Re: (Score:2)
Doing stuff like requiring them to fund pension plans 30 years into the future
Imagine expecting an organization to have real plan and concrete assets in place to meet their defined benefit contractual obligations to employees.
I mean they should be able to use rosy predictions about asset performance and when it does not work just dump the bill on the taxpayers like state and local pension funds for teachers, police, etc do! Or maybe they should be like the cool kids in corporate American declare bankruptcy, sell all the assets to an other entity that just happens to be owned by the s
Re: (Score:2)
Given how it has been losing money, why not privatize it, and let it compete w/ UPS, FedEx, DHL and others? Also, how many people still send paper letters or postcards these days?
That way, if they can't compete, let them get acquired by UPS or Amazon or somebody else
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, thank you, Comrade! How does something look like it's losing money, when its finances are pretty much there to see. Either way, there is no reason for government to be in it: if it's making money, good for it, and if it isn't, let it merge w/ Amazon or UPS or somebody willing to buy and run it
Rising fuel costs (Score:4, Funny)
Gee, what ever could the reason for rising fuel costs be?
Duh. Hunter Biden's laptop!
Re: (Score:2)
Gee, what ever could the reason for rising fuel costs be?
Duh. Hunter Biden's laptop!
Wait... I thought it was Hillary's email server?
Or was it O'Blama standing by and doing nothing during the attack on Pearl Harbor?
"ongoing financial pressure" (Score:5, Informative)
Do you know about the USPS 75-year pre-funding mandate?
In 2006, Congress passed a law that imposed extraordinary costs on the U.S. Postal Service. The Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (PAEA) required the USPS to create a $72 billion fund to pay for the cost of its post-retirement health care costs, 75 years into the future. This burden applies to no other federal agency or private corporation.
If the costs of this retiree health care mandate were removed from the USPS financial statements, the Post Office would have reported operating profits in each of the last six years. This extraordinary mandate created a financial “crisis” that has been used to justify harmful service cuts and even calls for postal privatization. Additional cuts in service and privatization would be devastating for millions of postal workers and customers.
https://ips-dc.org/how-congres... [ips-dc.org]
No other government agency or any corporation has to deal with such a mandate, but now the USPS can make money but republicans can claim the lazy bureaucrats are wasting the taxpayers money.
Re: (Score:2)
The PAEA mandate on the postal service was lifted 3 years ago.
Your larger point remains though. The GOP is determined to kill the postal service. The GOP's obsession with the postal service being profitable is stupid. It's right there in the name: it's a service provided by government. You don't see anybody insisting your local fire department show a profit at the end of the year.
Re: (Score:2)
Plus they hired a military contractor to waste money making stupid ugly delivery vans that are way way behind schedule
Those vehicles are everything the administration hates: they're much safer for vulnerable road users, e.g. pedestrians and cyclists and much more accessible than trucks, with low floor, easy entry and so on.
Re: (Score:2)
My USPS is using a minivan because they couldn't get what they were supposed to-- the good part is the minivan is far better than the shit being slowly made in Wisconsin.
Same, I just got a package delivery from USPS by minivan yesterday.
Govt has limited amount of money (Score:3)
Providing services to citizens is currently not a priority.
Re: (Score:2)
All the more reason to privatize it
Re: (Score:2)
It is about profit motive, which is good: it ensures that one gets quality service. Particularly if the service in question is not a monopoly
Had people still been in the habit of writing paper letters or postcards, there may well have been not just the post office, but more than one of them. Truth is that like the telegram, it has completely fallen out of vogue, and as boomers die off, the number of people who use it for that purpose would fall even lower. At that point, it's up to any company to deter
Repeat 2007-2008 (Score:3)
This supercharged the crisis of 2007-2008. not sure there was many articles written about it, but the patterns are the same.
First person tax 8% on the seller bumps their price by 8% to offset it. If there is an intermediary, they tack on 8% and so on and so forth until the costs outweigh the benefits.
Nail people have to make hard decisions as to what they want to purchase and of course cry about their V8 single driver vehicle costing so much to fill up.
The shit is about to come off the rails. Once one person does it a.k.a. USPS it's gonna greenlight everybody else.
Same day delivery from Amazon (Score:2)
Amazon will deliver to my door. Same day. I live outside city limits. Great service.
USPS uses a Contract Delivery Service. They only deliver to the parcel boxes. Never to my door. If it doesn't fit in the box, it's a 16 minute drive and 16 minutes back to the post office without traffic to fetch my package. I avoid USPS.
it's too much winning (Score:2)
We're gonna win so much, you may even get tired of winning. And you'll say, Please, please. Its too much winning. We can't take it anymore, Mr. President, it's too much.
skyrocketing inflation (Score:2)
Americans should count themselves lucky that most of Trump's initiatives have been neutral and ineffective at best. You are lucky if skyrocketing inflation is all you have to deal with.
As employees who cared left things began to suck (Score:2)
Anything to avoid taxing billionaires (Score:2)
United States Junk Mail Delivery Service (Score:2)
If the post office disappeared today, nothing of value would be lost. UPS, FedEx, Amazon, Door Dash, etc. There are now any number of options for delivery of things to our homes. We don't need the post office now, and that's been the case for at least a decade.
Re:hmm (Score:4, Informative)
So for you, the ends justify the means no matter what the means are?
He has killed thousands of Iranians, cost the global economy trillions of dollars, cost the taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars, ruined the US's reputation as a dependable and reliable partner, and effectively made the rule of law meaningless... but the exact same regime that does horrible things to Iranians is still in power so... winning?
Would you apply the same asinine justifications if Biden or Obama would have done the same thing? Starting a war that throws the global economy into reverse while increasing average fuel costs for US citizens by at least 30% and climbing, and you would have been just peachy with it, because of the poor downtrodden Iranians?
Get fucked, you anonymous pathetic hypocrite ball-washing shill.
Re: (Score:2)
He has killed thousands of Iranians, cost the global economy trillions of dollars, cost the taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars, ruined the US's reputation as a dependable and reliable partner, and effectively made the rule of law meaningless... but the exact same regime that does horrible things to Iranians is still in power so... winning?
Would you apply the same asinine justifications if Biden or Obama would have done the same thing? Starting a war that throws the global economy into reverse while increasing average fuel costs for US citizens by at least 30% and climbing, and you would have been just peachy with it, because of the poor downtrodden Iranians?
People don't seem to have any clue of the extent of the oppression in Iran nor are they aware of the extent to which legitimacy has been irrevocably shattered. Saying shit like "because of the poor downtrodden Iranians" is a manifestly ignorant assessment of the situation.
Re: (Score:2)
It's also completely unrelated to the point at hand.
The level of oppression in Iran can't possibly be more than the level of oppression in North Korea, can it?
Yet there is two reasons why we feel enabled to bomb the shit out of Iran while leaving North Korea alone, isn't there?
1. Iran does not have nukes, where North Korea has demonstrated nuclear explosive capability with underground testing
2. Iran has oil, where North Korea does not.
The oppression never enters the equation until after the bombs already fe
Re: (Score:2)
It's also completely unrelated to the point at hand.
The "point at hand" of my post was exclusively a response to the absurd characterization "because of the poor downtrodden Iranians".
The level of oppression in Iran can't possibly be more than the level of oppression in North Korea, can it?
Yet there is two reasons why we feel enabled to bomb the shit out of Iran while leaving North Korea alone, isn't there?
1. Iran does not have nukes, where North Korea has demonstrated nuclear explosive capability with underground testing
2. Iran has oil, where North Korea does not.
I don't think #1 makes all that much sense given ample opportunity to bomb North Korea when it didn't possess nukes.
I don't pretend to have any idea why we are or are not bombing any given country. I never supported bombing Iran but I do support continuing it for the sake of regime change now that the bombing has started. I would say compared to North Korea Iran is different i
Re: (Score:2)
Re:there are many points (Score:5, Interesting)
So you're just a "regime change" warmonger chickenhawk.
And please tell me how I ever "portray[ed] Iran as the good guys here" because that's a straw man you piled up with your pathetic binary understanding of global affairs.
Hint: there is way more nuance to international relations than "good" and "bad" and you're a fucking idiot to try to reduce it to such triviality.
I never said that Iran didn't have it coming. My problem is that our President violated US law to deliver it.
He couldn't do it the right way and have the Republican Congress give him the proper authority to do what he's doing? Even Shrub was able to get that done for Afghanistan / Iraq with his WMD lies - are you saying that GWB was a better negotiator and legislator than Trump? Because it sounds like that's what you're saying.
Re:there are many points (Score:5, Insightful)
No he is not. He has no power to start wars. or kidnap people. he can make emergency defensive moves. that is why they are bending over backwards to make up imminent threat emergency excuses to give them legal cover that itself is pathetic. even bush had to work at it to do his war; this idiot just picks the worst option people give him -- just as John Bolton said he did previously.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You have a lot of blind faith in 53 Senators to not be self-interested cowards who go along to get along.
You have a lot of blind faith in 218 House members to not be come-to-do-good stay-to-do-well self-enriching hypocrites.
We know that's who these people are, because they're not even interested in holding this administration to account for violating laws that THEY WROTE AND PASSED, AND THIS PRESIDENT SIGNED. See: the Epstein Files Transparency Act.
The system isn't working as intended, because we have 273
Re: (Score:2)
So you're a hypocrite in addition to a chickenhawk warmonger. Good to know.
Oh, I complain about those things too, because they are similarly illegal. This is a rogue administration who routinely breaks statutory law, as well as Constitutional law when it suits them. We can agree on that.
I don't know why you can't agree that the Constitution gives Congress war powers to delegate as they choose, as well as the statutory law requirements on the books that Congress put in place after the violations of the Ni
Re: (Score:2)
If you think Trump did something wrong impeach him. If you don't like the way the current system is working get a Constitutional amendment passed and change it. Otherwise crawl back under your rock and let the people who understand nuance do their thing.
This sentence alone shows you have no understanding of nuance, and have no understanding of what I'm saying. You are an ignorant rube that cannot logically defend anything happening here, yet you continue trying.
Go back to wearing your MAGA hat and trying to justify anything the cult leader says, no matter if it's contradicting something he said mere minutes before in the same event.
THAT is who you are defending here. And his stupidity is drowning you.
Re:hmm (Score:5, Insightful)
The Iranians themselves killed tens of thousands.
So maybe you should talk to them about that, and how that violates their laws.
We're talking about violating our own laws here, and why post-facto justification doesn't cut it.
It's the Iranians costing the global economy all that money and disrupting all their neighbors and world trade.
It's been known by anyone with a pulse that this is exactly the leverage that Iran would use in an existential crisis. To cause an existential crisis and not figure that they would pull that lever is fucking stupid. Do not blame someone for the reaction to the stimulus that you provided - it makes you look like an idiot. Do you blame someone for kicking at you if you hit their patellar tendon with a reflex hammer?
TL;DR: if someone says "do ${ACTION} and I'm going to punch you in the dick" are you surprised if you do ${ACTION} they try to hit you in the dick?
Stop trying to post-facto justify an illegal war, where the "justifications" change every hour. And if we were over there to delivery the Iranian people from repression, why are we now softening our position of "unconditional surrender" to a 15-point plan where they don't even want to say what the 15 points are? Are any of them a regime change that deals with what you're talking about even remotely?
How are we delivering Iranian people from tyranny if it's a guy with the same name and same politics still leading the country?
Why are you trying to justify the absolute nonsense this administration is trying to sell? None of it makes any sense if you put even a second of thought to it. You might try it some time.
Re: (Score:2)
Why are you trying to justify the absolute nonsense this administration is trying to sell? None of it makes any sense if you put even a second of thought to it. You might try it some time.
I might as well piss everyone off now, so I'll wade into the piss filled pool.
First off, I haven't voted for a republican since Arlen Spector. (check that out) Republicans in general are the worst sort of cowards, spend money we don't have like drunken sailors, and are a general waste of sperm, oxygen and other resources.
That the USA is a fucking mess right now is an outcome that anyone with a functioning brain could forsee happening, even if the exact details weren't clear at the time. Inflation, 5+ d
Re: (Score:2)
You and I are in the same ballpark. I'm an Oregonian "moderate" who cherishes Oregon's long history of sending old-school Republicans that had no problem bucking the party-over-people trend and working with Democrats (Wayne Morse, Mark Hatfield) - because in this state you have to if you want to get anything done.
Republicans have gone absolutely batshit crazy, so anyone that self-identifies there is off my list of who I can vote for. While that party is in total thrall of Trump and spewing his obvious bul
Re: (Score:2)
Vote 4 me so I can release the Epstein files. Doesnt release the Epstein files. It's OK we forgive you.
Vote 4 me, no new wars Starts new wars It's OK we forgive you.
Vote 4 me I'll drain the swamp Becomes most corrupt President ever It's OK we forgive you.
etc etc.
Republicans are in a cult. There is no other possibility
Their spokespeople come out and say the stupidest craziest lies. Republicans just passively nod.
It is amazing, is it not? TrumpCult is not a bad description.
The next general election, the biggest weapon the Democrats will have is the old saying "Are you better off today than you were 4 years ago?"
And Trumpfuel and Trumpfood will be a big item. All those far righties in their big 10 mpg trucks are paying for their fealty.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem there, is that the whole "are you better off than 4 years ago" question was mutated and destroyed last cycle.
Literally everyone was better off in November 2024 than they were in November 2020, and yet we got what we got.
Arguments of good faith always fail against arguments of bad faith, when the arguments of bad faith are not called out for being bad faith arguments.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry. Americans don't do rational.
Democrats have policies. They get questioned about those policies. Not everyone always likes the answers.
Republicans promise "everything will be better and you'll get a pony". Plus it's OK to be racist now. Nobody asks any questions.
Who do you think people will vote for?
While it is popular to claim that Americans are the stupidest people ever to be put on earth, there is a non-zero chance they are simply humans, who do risk/reward assessments.
Yes, the Republicans have no real plans.
The problem is that in roughly the past 15 years or so, the Democrats went off the rails. Republicans have done the same in years past. Think about the second time O'Blama was elected. So after Hillary Clinton won the election, yet lost the White House because of a quirk of the electoral co
Re: (Score:2)
stop objectifying women as "Birthing People" - don't deny it, the 2022 budget called women birthing people.
It's not a political talking point. It is a reality that some people who give birth will look exactly like men (when clothed, obviously). Are you interested in accuracy when laws and policies are written?
In addition stop denying science and biology. Supporting biological men playing sports on biological women's athletic teams is part of this, and not only is batshit insane, but places women under the tyranny of men.
This is a red herring that was invented by the anti-trans movement to try to find an anti-trans cause they could rally people behind. Rules for sports at national, regional, and international levels have addressed issues of gender and sex and fairness for decades and decades, with no serious loss of opportu
Re: (Score:2)
stop objectifying women as "Birthing People" - don't deny it, the 2022 budget called women birthing people.
It's not a political talking point. It is a reality that some people who give birth will look exactly like men (when clothed, obviously). Are you interested in accuracy when laws and policies are written?
The problem you have here, is I am speaking of science, of which a DNA test will validate exactly what a person is. There are females, there are males and a very small number of intersex results. You are speaking of how a person dresses. SRSLY?
Here's the problem. First is of course the obvious objectification. An objectification that many women find extremely offensive.
Second, there is a huge problem with claiming you demand accuracy.
A "birthing person" is a Genetic female who can give birth to anothe
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. You don't like the Dems plans. So may as well vote for no plans and blowing up the government. It's a self fulfilling prophecy and you end up with the government you deserve.
Ahh, assuming you are the same coward who replied to my first post, you'll perhaps remember that I clearly noted that I haven't voted for a Republican in over 25 years, and then it was only one - Arlen Spector. So your assumption is badly incorrect from the start.
Even more to the point, the years of the path Dems were on were effectively doing the same thing as your "blowing up the government".
In the end, they were every bit as bad as those they declared their enemies. And they were declaring more grou
Re: (Score:2)
How are we delivering Iranian people from tyranny if it's a guy with the same name and same politics still leading the country?
The guy "leading the country" is likely either a vegetable or outright dead.
Re: (Score:2)
Well that makes it better, doesn't it?
Somehow we're having talks with Iran, when we don't even know who's in charge. Are we negotiating with just some guy that says he can negotiate, or is it THE guy? Or are we talking at all, because the only one saying we are is Trump, and he's a proven liar that shouldn't be believed without factual correlation or witnesses.
Re: (Score:2)
Well that makes it better, doesn't it?
Yes, I think an effectively dead leader that isn't being replaced is better than a living one presuming the goal is regime change.
Somehow we're having talks with Iran, when we don't even know who's in charge. Are we negotiating with just some guy that says he can negotiate, or is it THE guy? Or are we talking at all, because the only one saying we are is Trump, and he's a proven liar that shouldn't be believed without factual correlation or witnesses.
I keep having flashbacks to Sharpiegate. My personal guess Trump is mostly just making shit up. His public statements had the same vibe as the babbling about Iran having Tomahawks.
Re: (Score:3)
I thought we did that 6 months ago when we "obliterated" their nuclear program?
Are you saying Trump lied? And why would this bombing campaign work out any different? Because of larger scale?
They still have the uranium hexaflouride gas because they moved it before the previous bombing that "obliterated" their physical plant. It's still at whatever level it was enriched to. And they still know how to enrich it further. You cannot bomb knowledge.
They still know how to make long range missiles. You cannot
Re:hmm (Score:4, Insightful)
Seems I touched a nerve when I called out your binary understanding of geopolitics and said that you needed to look at the nuance.
And you still aren't.
How can something be "totally obliterated" and then be a problem again in 6 months? That sounds like "damaged" instead of "obliterated."
Take your complete lack of nuance and go find a dictionary. You sound like an idiot. And then you go on to throw shade at someone else's intelligence by claiming they have a position that they already say they do not.
Don't focus so much on "bad" and "good" - it clearly will only confuse you.
And to answer your question of why Iran has HEU? Because Trump tore up the deal that limited them to far less enrichment, which they were complying with. Looks like your "nuance" is absolutely lacking once again.
Re: hmm (Score:2)
I don't want Iran to have nukes. I also don't want any other country to have nukes. The USA do not have a stronger claim to a right to have nukes than Iran does.
Re: (Score:2)
How do you know?
They aren't publicly disclosing the "plan" - they're just saying there is one.
Iran is saying they aren't even talking, and they aren't interested in talking.
For all you know, the 15 points could be completely orthogonal to anything that has been publicly discussed.
Stop making assumptions and arguing them as fact. You have no fucking idea what the hell is in it, because nobody else does either. You can't even say with any kind of certainty that such a plan exists, but I can say with certain
Re: (Score:2)
I was against them.
But please go on standing up straw men to knock the hell out of.
I'm not the hypocrite chickenhawk warmonger here.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought we got over the whole "bombing the middle east for specious and outright false reasons" thing 20 years ago too, but here we are.
Re:hmm (Score:5, Insightful)
sure attack Iran and put an end to all that.
But at least have a plan for when Iran blocks world trade. It's not like every advisor told you what would happen. Every wargame scenario. The Iranians themselves telling you they'd do it. It being completely obvious to virtually anyone who's IQ is above room temperature.
It's like the toddler in chief never had to understand the consequences for any action he's ever taken. When are the adults going to take over?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Another good metaphor is like trying to talk a toddler out of a loaded gun.
Re:hmm (Score:4, Interesting)
As long as Israel is pleased what else matters?
Re: (Score:2)
are those Iranian nuclear weapons safely stored in the same place as Saddam's "WEAPONS of MASS DESTRUCTION"?
that would explain why neither have yet to be found
Re: (Score:2)
"I don't need the oil. So you know I'm not there to plunder it"
Funny that every place so far that Trump has "set free" is a significant oil producer - Venezuela, Iran and Nigeria.
Why not freedom for, for example, North Korea?
Or...Afghanistan?
Re:hmm (Score:5, Insightful)
"It's like the toddler in chief never had to understand the consequences for any action he's ever taken." That is precisely correct, he never has had to understand the consequences of his actions. He's just a two-bit bunko artist. A bunko artist never does have to understand consequences as long as he gets what he immediately wants. There's always another mark out there.
And el Bunko is no different. After stiffing banks, he still found banks willing to lend to him. After stiffing contractors, there were plenty more where they came from. And up until about May of last year, he always found enough Maggots who would believe him. Now he's running out of those kinds of Maggots. It seems some have found out he lied to them about the la Presidenta-Epstein files. And now he's lying about the Epstein-Iran war. He lied about his tariffs. He lies about everything and never could tell the difference between truth and what he wants.
No. 1 Rule of la Presidenta: He destroys everything he touches, and the U.S. made that idiot president.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny. Here's video of an orange turd saying he won't start any wars and will in fact stop them. https://www.c-span.org/clip/ca... [c-span.org]
Re:hmm (Score:4, Funny)
It's not a war
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
also America has been utterly peaceful since the end of WW2 and have not ever declared war since.
Re: (Score:2)
So the Vietnam War wasn't a war? The Vietnam War Memorial just to the northeast of the Lincoln Memorial is misnamed? 55,000 US military personnel died for a not-war?
The Korean War wasn't a war? The Korean War Memorial just to the southeast of the Lincoln Memorial that the Embassy of the Republic of South Korea puts a wreath at every week since it opened is misnamed?
The Iraq War and War in Afghanistan weren't wars that lasted for 20 years? Pretty sure any of the tens of thousands of US military personnel
Re: (Score:2)
Only Congress can declare a war - it's in the Constitution.
Otherwise it's an excursion, a troop deployment, an armed exercise in spreading freedom & democracy or a spetsial'naya voyennaya operatsiya
Re: (Score:2)
Since when did the MAGA crowd care about the plights of brown people?
MAGAs care about what Trump and JD tell them to care about.
Remember when they were against child sex trafficking and pedos? Pepperidge Farm remembers.
Re: (Score:3)
When they do the math on buying 30 gallons of gas for their F150 and see it will cost $150.
Re: (Score:2)
When they do the math on buying 30 gallons of gas for their F150 and see it will cost $150.
Actually, defending the Trump administration's decision to attack Iran also implies a condonation of the resulting jacked up gas prices. Perhaps it's the conservatives who don't have "I bought this before we knew Musk was crazy" bumper stickers on their Teslas. There's gotta be at least a few of 'em.
Re: (Score:2)
They're still in denial about that. Had one just a couple days ago saying that the gas price increases are just the regular price increase in the spring.
Re: (Score:2)
When they do the math on buying 30 gallons of gas for their F150 and see it will cost $150.
Especially the trucks that get 10 miles per gallon.
Re:Meanwhile (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, lay off la Presidenta. He's needs time to play with his new "present" (very expensive we're told, but not by anyone reliable) from Iran.
Re: (Score:3)
I love how he can openly threaten actual war crimes and nobody even takes notice.
Re: (Score:2)
Amazon has free shipping options.
Only if you meet the order minimum or have a paid Prime membership (and even then, there's still some limitations). Packages don't just ship themselves, you know.
Re: (Score:2)
Packages don't just ship themselves, you know.
Two words: Robot packages. :-)
(Not package robots, which Amazon already has.)
Re: (Score:2)
Amazon has free shipping options.
Only if you meet the order minimum or have a paid Prime membership (and even then, there's still some limitations). Packages don't just ship themselves, you know.
I have Amazon Prime. Determining if it is a good deal is pretty simple math. The main limitations with shipping I have is there is a 25 dollar minimum for overnight delivery vs 2 day. So sometimes I have to add another item - that I would have been buying anyway. Or I don't if 2 days is fine.
There are also some items that have a longer delivery time. I find this when buying exotic wood for projects. In almost all cases, it is because the product is not in stock at Amazon's fulfillment warehouses, so it ge
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Because Amazon is frequently more expensive than other retailers.
Re: (Score:2)
Because Amazon is frequently more expensive than other retailers.
I cannot think of a time that it did not pay to compare prices.
I have Amazon prime, for me it is frequently less expensive, esp when shipping is involved. But I still do a reality check. Where it really comes in handy is when I re-order materials for the shop. Because I've already checked them out, and I don't need to spend time doing due diligence on price.
Re: (Score:3)
I find a lot of sellers out there that still do not charge sales tax and some times...that makes it cheaper than Amazon...
Re: (Score:2)
Believe it or not, I STILL find it pays to compare Amazon to maybe smaller retailers....for shipping vs tax!!!
I find a lot of sellers out there that still do not charge sales tax and some times...that makes it cheaper than Amazon...
It depends on if they send you a tax notice or not. There was an outfit in Ohio that I used to purchase a lot of electronics from. One year I got a note from them listing my purchases, and that I would have to pay taxes on. That was a pain in the ass.
I think they got "caught", or had new accountants or something. But yes - if you can avoid the sales tax, it's a significant discount.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting, I've never received any such notices....but most of my stuff is one off buys...not repeated purchases from a sin
Re: (Score:2)
Amazon has free shipping options
It's hilarious that you think that you aren't paying for "free shipping". Amazon just isn't showing it as a separate line item for it.
Re: (Score:2)
If you really think Amazon shipping is "free", I have a bridge to sell you. It's build using tofu.