I still remember when Obama wearing a tan suit was controversial.
[flagged]
I don't think the Trump administration would have been any less keen to bomb Libya.
Trump Media to sell instant access to 'market-moving' social posts
61–70 of 125 posts
Re: Trump Media to sell instant access to 'market-moving' social posts
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
The supply of capital is absolutely critical to an industrial economy, even if there's a lot of corruption along the way.
The supply of food is absolutely critical to a human population, even if truckloads of fish are left to rot in the sun outside schools? The supply of mineral and energy resources is absolutely critical to an industrial economy, even if rivers are polluted to the point they catch fire ala the Cuyahoga River Fire of 1969? I suspect it's worth the effort to minimise and prosecute the corruption, waste, and harmful exter…
> The supply of food is absolutely critical to a human population, even if truckloads of fish are left to rot in the sun outside schools?
Well, yes, you can't solve this problem by cutting off the supply of food and then declaring that you've ended waste.
Re: Trump Media to sell instant access to 'market-moving' social posts
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
The supply of food is absolutely critical to a human population, even if truckloads of fish are left to rot in the sun outside schools? The supply of mineral and energy resources is absolutely critical to an industrial economy, even if rivers are polluted to the point they catch fire ala the Cuyahoga River Fire of 1969? I suspect it's worth the effort to minimise and prosecute the corruption, waste, and harmful exter…
> The supply of food is absolutely critical to a human population, even if truckloads of fish are left to rot in the sun outside schools? Well, yes, you can't solve this problem by cutting off the supply of food and then declaring that you've ended waste.
> you can't solve this problem
by doing something I did not suggest. Agreed.
What I did suggest is not putting up with corruption, waste, and toxic externalities "just because".
Re: Trump Media to sell instant access to 'market-moving' social posts
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
Both sides are bad. One is worse. Both lead America rapidly downhill. One does it faster.
From an external point of view, one side is at least trying. Ranked choice voting, "no corporate money in politics" and other initiative like this, to add more democracy, suddenly come out on my news feed and each time i say to myself "it won't work right now, but at least it seems those are steps in the correct direction". Supporting the people who run on those platform is infinitely better than a destructive nihili…
One side is trying to destroy America, the other is sitting by and prioritising maintaining decorum and insider trading off the destruction of America that's already happening. I don't know who's running on the platform you just said.
Re: Trump Media to sell instant access to 'market-moving' social posts
#65Kleptocracy in all its forms.
As this president likes to say,”A disgrace”. And every accusation is a confession.
Elections have consequences.
Re: Trump Media to sell instant access to 'market-moving' social posts
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Both sides are bad. One is worse. Both lead America rapidly downhill. One does it faster.
> Both sides are bad.
There were (then-)members of the Republican party who voted for Clinton, Biden, and Harris:
> Conservative author David Frum, a speechwriter for former President George W. Bush, announced Wednesday that he cast an early vote for Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.
* https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/303984-david-fr...
> But she is a patriot. She will uphold the sovereignty and independence of the United States. She will defend allies. She will execute the laws with reasonable impartiality. She may bend some rules for her own and her supporters’ advantage. She will not outright defy legality altogether. Above all, she can govern herself; the first indispensable qualification for governing others.
> So I will vote for the candidate who rejects my preferences and offends my opinions. (In fact, I already have voted for her.) Previous generations accepted infinitely heavier sacrifices and more dangerous duties to defend democracy. I’ll miss the tax cut I’d get from united Republican government. But there will be other elections, other chances to vote for what I regard as more sensible policies. My party will recover to counter her agenda in Congress, moderate her nominations to the courts, and defeat her bid for re-election in 2020. I look forward to supporting Republican recovery and renewal.
* https://archive.is/https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arch...
That was in 2016.
Re: Trump Media to sell instant access to 'market-moving' social posts
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
[flagged]
> We're going to take the "both sides bad" intellectual dishonesty
The intellectual dishonesty is pretending that not calling out both sides will lead to any kind of long term solution.
> But hey! Kamala would've done the same.
Saying both sides are bad is not saying they're the same. They take on different forms but are both fundamentally broken and part of the same uniparty of capital interests. The blue/red parties offer an illusion of democracy, but really they just play good cop/bad cop while ultimately serving the wants of elites instead of needs/wants of the vast majority.
But elections appear close, so people think they still have a democracy while they argue about which flavor of shit to install in the control booth. Installing the subjectively "less bad" flavor only guarantees the other one will soon take over in a collective race to the bottom. Dems elevated Trump from meme tier gameshow host to serious contender thanks to their pied piper strategy, and all they could manage was to get mad at wikileaks for exposing them.
Re: Trump Media to sell instant access to 'market-moving' social posts
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
From an external point of view, one side is at least trying. Ranked choice voting, "no corporate money in politics" and other initiative like this, to add more democracy, suddenly come out on my news feed and each time i say to myself "it won't work right now, but at least it seems those are steps in the correct direction". Supporting the people who run on those platform is infinitely better than a destructive nihili…
One side is trying to destroy America, the other is sitting by and prioritising maintaining decorum and insider trading off the destruction of America that's already happening. I don't know who's running on the platform you just said.
There are quite a few democratic socialists running on that platform across the country.
Re: Trump Media to sell instant access to 'market-moving' social posts
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
> We're going to take the "both sides bad" intellectual dishonesty The intellectual dishonesty is pretending that not calling out both sides will lead to any kind of long term solution. > But hey! Kamala would've done the same. Saying both sides are bad is not saying they're the same. They take on different forms but are both fundamentally broken and part of the same uniparty of capital interests. The blue/red partie…
You might as well say neither side are perfect (which no one disagrees with).
And here we are with perfect being the enemy of the good…
Re: Trump Media to sell instant access to 'market-moving' social posts
#70This merely "encourages" Trump and team to move the markets even more, to sell more subscriptions ?
He and his staff can plan out specific utterances that are substantial for moving the markets - endless feedback loop ?