Eatspancakes84 @ Eatspancakes84 @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

494

Joined

2 yr. ago

Tariff the advertisers. Also, strictly enforce GDPR.

Wtf a deadly heart attack at age 25??

I really don’t think so. Putin will not give the US such a big win in the Arctic. The point about nationalism is that you can be friends with another nationalist leader, but only up to a point when there is some perceived divergence of interest. Therefore you cannot have a long term alliance between them. Putin understands this well (even if Trump does not).

Also, huge scandal breaks out and you don’t check your personal records before giving a response?

We would indeed prefer shipping to Suez. That’s why we deploy navy ships to the Red Sea. Doesn’t mean that we asked for this particular strike on Jemen (which as many already pointed out is unlikely to affect piracy much). You can’t say you do something for Europe when to my knowledge no European nation asked for this “aide”.

Not particularly technically inclined so this question may be stupid, but suppose an intelligence service found some backdoor into Signal, wouldn’t they try to keep that information hidden from Signal? So in theory the chat could be vulnerable already?

European here: we did not ask for your help, we do not particularly want you to bomb the houthis (or anyone in the Middle East for that matter).

I have heard accounts that his contributions are greatly exaggerated. He certainly did not invent AC electricity which I guess is why you assume that Tesla gave us electricity. See here for some more info https://youtu.be/6331JXvOUGY

It either happens in the mid-terms or never. If progressives win big, you have a chance of changing DNC leadership.

Not sure how you envision this. It’s not a winning strategy to have a third party run for election. The best outcome by far is if AOC is the Democratic presidential candidate in 2028.

Fully agree. I hate these clickbait articles that for example say“Here is why Trump wants to annex Canada as the 51st state” to proceed explaining me about Canada’s strategic location and it’s mineral resources.

No Trump does not have a rational idea about why he wants to annex Canada, beyond “it looks nice on the map”, and all the mineral wealth in the world does not make up for the cost of antagonising your closest ally.

These ideas are all completely bonkers. You may have discovered a rational justification, but 1. Trump is not a rational actor, and 2. The justification is always insufficient to cover the damage it does to the US, and the world.

Yes indeed, but also primaries can help to attract voters. I think the Sanders campaigns, though he didn’t win, made young people more likely to vote Democrat.

Don’t forget his trans daughter. Pretty sure that she was a catalyst.

Fully agree. In fact you can apply this much wider. The only solution to the Earth’s problems is to get rid of all people on it /s.

I mean, it’s just really hard to understand why all these billionaires have decided to become so politically active. 1.) they have more than enough money for 10 more generations at least. 2.) if there is a serious tax hike or other threat to their wealth they can always quietly buy off some key politicians. 3.) if you stick your neck out like Musk (and some other billionaire cabinet members do) you run the chance that people will want to cut it off. If I were a billionaire I would make it my lives mission to ensure that the general public does not know my name.

Matters at least a bit. For instance, Musk has signalled his interest in buying OpenAI. He will find it far harder to get the money for it now that Tesla shares have nosedived.

More generally with Tesla it is difficult to make a business case for the existence of the company right now, since Musk alienated his entire potential consumer base. I wouldn’t be surprised if the company gets sold into parts in the text two years or so.

Ehm you have that reversed (or your phrasing is terrible). Production>consumption implies export>imports implies lending to abroad exceeds borrowing from abroad. Said differently, if the current account is in surplus, the capital account is (by definition) in deficit.

To make this all a bit more intuitive: suppose instead of spending money on consumption goods, we invest in foreign assets. In that case we spend less meaning that we either import less foreign goods or have more domestic produced goods available for export. The consequence is an increase in the current account surplus.

This focus on the balance of trade is sooo stupid. The US spends more than it produces so it has an aggregate deficit on the trade balance. To stop this, you need to force Americans to spend less (I.e. ignite a recession), or produce more.

Tariffs against selected countries that have a strong bilateral trade surplus with the US will not affect the US’ aggregate trade balance, since it doesn’t affect consumption by/ or production of the US economy. This is common knowledge from econ 101, and shouldn’t need to be explained to a president that supposedly has a degree in business.

Corporations and their owners thought that Trump would boost the stock market through tax cuts. Instead the market is tanking due to his moronic tariffs and Russia-appeasement strategy. Now that it’s clear he won’t be making them money they have rediscovered their “morals”.

While I agree, here’s what I worry about. Even if the leadership is replaced, the culture of the Democrats is to listen to consultants, voter panels etc. It’s commendable to take voters wishes into account, but what most voters want is a leader, not a listener.

Example: during the campaign voter panels talked about inflation and immigration whereas healthcare was ranked at the bottom. Therefore Democrats did not talk about healthcare.

But this is really a chicken and egg story. If nobody talks about healthcare, voters feel that healthcare is not on the ballot, and so they won’t mention the topic in voter panels. Luigi showed (once again) that healthcare in the US is fucked and that many people in fact care deeply about the topic. I am almost sure that Harris would have done better had she made healthcare the central issue of her campaign. The moral is that as long as Democrats are following, rather than leading, they will continue to lose elections.