101–110 of 124 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We could be spending all this effort on curing diseases...how stupid we can be.
You won't believe this next part. We actually did make vaccines for several diseases that were as close to 100% safe as real world possible, and people were voluntarily rejecting it.
For context, SNAP is valued at $14Bn. This is a straight up giveaway to friends. Even dictators in other countries don't make it so obvious because they're worried their populations would revolt, which says a lot about the American voter today.
This would significantly impact its valuation to outside investors.
The ideal scenario isn't the government forcing a sale of TikTok for political reasons. The ideal is that people stop using TikTok because they realize it's not good for them, but I guess I don't see that happening. Instead we'll just continue scrolling while wondering why we're so unhappy and angry all the time.
> The ideal is that people stop using ______ Fill in the blank with whatever you find personally disagreeable: TikTok, alcohol, sports gambling, hallucinogens, video games, cigars, sugary foods, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Even accepting it in the first place is also odd illegal. That's the word you're looking for. The Constitution is absolutely clear on this: POTUS is not allowed to accept foreign gifts without authorization of Congress. To this day, Trump has neither sought nor received Congressional authorization.
The gift was to the American people accepted on our behalf by the felon. It is public property that just needs to be declared inoperable when he is out of office so he can't use it illegally.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You won't believe this next part. We actually did make vaccines for several diseases that were as close to 100% safe as real world possible, and people were voluntarily rejecting it.
Tiktok primarily causes harm and plenty of people voluntarily reject it. What's your point? We shouldn't do good things because sometimes people don't want them?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> BUT, there is precedent for this move. They gifted an even more expensive plane to Erdogan. "We gave a huge gift to an authoritarian leader" is indeed precedent; not a great one, though.
Point is it looks less like a tribute you might offer to a powerful emperor and more like an ordinary plane giveaway.
I’ve been around aviation for a good portion of my life, and oddly enough, I’ve never encountered an “ordinary plane giveaway.”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What does the UAE get out of this? Is it just a massive financial loss in exchange for US market access?
> What does the UAE get out of this? What does the UAE gain by funneling $2B to Trump, who is notoriously a) transactional and b) one of the most powerful people on the planet?
Trump is not transactional.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What does the UAE get out of this? What does the UAE gain by funneling $2B to Trump, who is notoriously a) transactional and b) one of the most powerful people on the planet?
Being "transactional" requires you to hold up your end of the bargain, which Trump famously does not. Trump is not transactional.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We could be spending all this effort on curing diseases...how stupid we can be.
You won't believe this next part. We actually did make vaccines for several diseases that were as close to 100% safe as real world possible, and people were voluntarily rejecting it.