Nothing to see here. Just a massive conflict of interest from an unelected foreigner exacting power over your government.
While Republicans cheer.
Phyllis Fong, who was investigating Neuralink, "forcefully removed "
131–140 of 249 posts
Re: Phyllis Fong, who was investigating Neuralink, "forcefully removed "
#132Earlier quoted context omitted.
becoming? past tense is more like it. also Google your own term in Wikipedia to see the history of it.
This extreme cynicism is part of what got us here. People have made this cynicism manifest. They're making the government of their imaginations real.
cynicism?
enough with your puerile, shallow pop psychology, bro.
maybe you didn't get what I mean by "your term".
I meant this comment by NicoJuicy, the parent comment that I replied to:
>US is becoming a banana republic
and the term that I meant was, Banana republic.
possibly you have not read the details of what a Banana republic really means, and how horrible it is, of both parties involved in that injustice, or rather those injustices, because it happened many times, with many countries, south of the US, in Central and/or South America. here you go:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_republic
short partial summary:
the US and some US business companies (in a nexus, of course) was usually involved in the creation of those Banana republics, to the financial advantage of both them and the concerned countries' rulers aka dictators, and to the huge detriment of the general public in these countries, including huge scheming, violence and looting against them, etc.
and guess just who coined the term Banana republic?
I bet this will surprise you. it was an American author, with pen name O. Henry:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/O._Henry
he was not innocent himself, he embezzled money from a bank, and fled south.
I have read a short story by him:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Leaf
it may be even manipulative by him, to make money, by tugging at heart strings, but I found it good nonetheless. we had it in English literature class in High School, IIRC.
wrong use of caps not by me, but by voice typing errors, can't be bothered to correct them.
also, wherever you are from, maybe you should read the following articles before pronouncing judgement on things you seem to know very little about:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Indigenous_Peoples%27_His...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bury_My_Heart_at_Wounded_Kne...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dee_Brown_(writer)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_the_United_States
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_women_in_the_Unit...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_imperialism
and maybe most of all, because it is kind of a summary and an indictment:
Re: Phyllis Fong, who was investigating Neuralink, "forcefully removed "
#133Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are/were a number of issues with its structure, some of which are described in the lawsuits mentioned on its Wikipedia page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Financial_Protectio...
Its constitutionality was literally upheld in SCOTUS So no, not really. You have a list of complaints from the regulated parties.
That’s one of the decisions; on the other hand, the director was made removable at will (by the courts, in response to a challenge, and contrary to the original statute), and there have been other proposed challenges. This change has proved consequential.
Re: Phyllis Fong, who was investigating Neuralink, "forcefully removed "
#134Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Are you arguing Phyllis deserved to be fired because she had a lot of experience and was a dedicated employee? That's a pretty hot take. I hope for your sake you are independently wealthy, lest someone who can impact your life comes along and determines you shouldn't be employed anymore because you've been doing it too long. You think twenty two years is too long to be in a profession, perhaps the next person will th…
[flagged]
Re: Phyllis Fong, who was investigating Neuralink, "forcefully removed "
#135Earlier quoted context omitted.
You see an electorate that wanted to cause harm. I see an electorate that thought anything is better than a black woman in charge. :-\
[flagged]
> Yeah, the fact that she can barely speak full sentences surely had nothing to do with it.
This is a bald lie, and is wildly unbecoming of discussion on this site.
But it’s also a hilarious assertion in the face of literally anything Trump has ever tried to say out loud.
Re: Phyllis Fong, who was investigating Neuralink, "forcefully removed "
#136I have to laugh at the trump administration idiocy with saying they are removing "these rogue, partisan bureaucrats", when, clearly, she's been there through 6 administrations... SMH.
Propaganda. Propaganda is the term you're looking for. Nothing idiotic about it, except the hordes of people willingly buying into it (including "smart" people on this very forum!)
[deleted]
Re: Phyllis Fong, who was investigating Neuralink, "forcefully removed "
#137Earlier quoted context omitted.
Trump has decided he controls the purse (a privilege of the legislative branch that he legally DOES NOT HAVE), has begun to fire people illegally and ignoring the legal methods (such as Fong), is doing so through someone who is not part of the federal government and has active conflicts of interest (Musk), and is actively working to remove the 22nd amendment that prevents him from becoming a dictator for life. Most o…
I bet America will be basically the same as it was in 2012, with respect to having two houses of congress, and democratically run elections, by 2028.
If Congress does whatever he says because he says it, let's him control the purse, and never does anything he doesn't directly approve of, then wtf is the point of having congress? That's a dictatorship with lipstick on.
Also, think we can get there without him genociding the adult trans community, putting trans minors in correction camps, and invalidating the human rights of all homosexual Americans? Can we get there without him turning every ally against us?
I'm feeling pretty pessimistic about that.
Can we do it while still having
Re: Phyllis Fong, who was investigating Neuralink, "forcefully removed "
#138Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is my big struggle with all of this. His first term I felt America was duped by a con man so protested and made a fuss on social media. Americans saw the first four years and astonishingly decided they wanted more of it, by a decent margin. So while I absolutely hate what is going on right now this seems to be what the people wanted. I question each day whether that needs to be respected or we should resist. I a…
[flagged]
maintaining the status-quo was at least predictable. change was needed, and was inevitable, but will the result be akin to the replacement of the articles of confederation with the constitution, or the replacement of the french republic with the first french empire?
Re: Phyllis Fong, who was investigating Neuralink, "forcefully removed "
#139Are there any good blogs that are chronicling the USA Federal gov's slow descent into facism and overt corruption, just collecting and archiving pieces like this with a classiciation/categorization etc.? I think it's an unprecedented opportunity to record the history of a downfall using modern tools, and future generations might benefit enormously. When I learned about the disruption of the Weimar Republic in highsch…
[flagged]
Re: Phyllis Fong, who was investigating Neuralink, "forcefully removed "
#140Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you look at everyone eligible to vote, the people spoke clearly in November with the same message they have for decades, "none of the above".
Those people spoke loud and clear: "We're OK with whatever everyone else decides!" So again: the people have spoken. America is getting exactly what America wants.
He won the popular vote by less than Hillary won it in 2016, _when she lost the election._ Every time he's been candidate or president, he's the least popular of either in the history we've polled popularity or approval. Many pluralities who constitute "America" (felons, especially when you consider how many people we imprison; and immigrants) who are subject to US law don't get to vote. And many institutions (DC not having senators, Puerto Rico, and the Senate generally) are barely representational and serving the function of democracy.
So I know it makes you feel intelligent and cool to say "ah, but you see: this is what they wanted," but in every other way you can measure it besides the very narrow way you're focused on, it's as untrue as it could be.