It’s a little more complex than that. He, like, was buying shares, blew past the 5% ownership disclosure point, failed to disclose, was forced to disclose his stake. He was then offered a seat on the board, didn’t like the lack of control, and made a meme offer on the remaining stake to take the company private, tried to pull out, and was forced to buy the company he didn’t want to buy by the board of directors who didn’t want him to buy it.

He’s the recent Adam Conover interview with the details: https://youtu.be/sxG2Y3E0uEY?si=r0VMY7s3iZ9uaP39

I think I used to play Halo 3 with that guy

Well 71 million Trump voters over 244 million eligible voters is 29%.

This is spectacular to hear. I have to wonder if the shift in control will exacerbate the issues that prevented the passing of a budget, however. I haven’t thought it through fully yet, but whatever the make up of the senate and house are, passing a budget is priority #1, and how that shakes out is going to be one of, if not the most significant short term effect on the economic situation of regular people.

As much as I hate to admit it, Newsom has the right plan here. Democrats in power need to erect as many institutional barriers to Trump implementing his own policy, and doing it at the State level disrupts their route of attack significantly. The danger is that shielding blue state Republicans from the worst effects of Trump’s economic policy might erode their potential support base, but they have to either take the risk, or carve out exceptions to their own policy that disproportionatly allow blue state Republicans to feel the sting (maybe, for instance, avoiding protections for small businesses). I doubt Democrats have the stomach for the latter option, so Newsom is making the correct play, and others should follow suit.

I was kind of Lukewarm on Walz initially, but he was super endearing. He was cooking there for a minute and then the DNC muzzled him. I remember the moment he got shut up about the electoral college I thought to myself “annnnd now all of his appeal is gone and he’s just another boring politician”. It was really startling to see how little he actually had to do to get the leash tugged.

I don’t necessarily disagree with you, but I think people, especially very politically-minded people tend to imagine their fellow citizens as has much more inflexible political views than they really do.

Most Americans are pretty ignorant of politics in general, and we get fed what is essential political theater in place of political news. I think those of us sitting online vigorously discussing politics tend to overestimate the political convictions of the average voter.

Most American voters, outside of those who are extremely entrenched in their parties, seem to me, to be pretty protean and contridictory in their views. I think it’s not unlikely that a self-described “conservative” would in fact support a lot of progressive policies as long as they were presented in a way that Tucker Carlson hasn’t pre-provided a talking point for.

Don’t forget that Trump was *against the discriminatory trans bathroom bills" in 2015, and all the same people who are now ready to organize pogroms against trans teenagers voted for him either way.

It’s also important to note than depending on how we define “income”, many of the richest have no “income” or a misleading small income (Zukerburg has, like, a 1$ salary or something) because they don’t their money from a wage… they get it from returns on investment. This is also why income tax is a misguided policy goal a lot of the time. We need to tax the investment income of the rich, not their salary.

Cheney almost certainly is concerned about Trump mismanaging US foreign policy, not his fashiness.

That wasn’t my question. But if you must know, if the choice is between “maintaining the current standard of living” and “stop risking the habitability of the one place known that can support life”, I choose the latter. Everytime. And it’s crazy to choose the former.

So if throwing paint at a entierly replaceable cover for a dusty old painting is too far gone to be acceptable, what action can we take to stop oil production? Like. It needs to stop. To continue producing fossil fuels is a death cult. It needs to stop, like, a decade ago. I ask genuinely, how is this too far, and what is an acceptable response to an existential threat?

edit: On the off chance someone reads this so long after the post, I just want to point out that nobody actually engaged with my question here.

I really wish people would look at it in this lens more. I think this is a big part of why we’re see this same issue in many developed countries. Like, yes. Xenophobia and racism is a part of it, but the other, more actionable part of it is that all of our viable political options have turned into technocrats who have used their political and economic expertise to fatten the richest people, and largest, most profitable industries at the expense of the poor for decades. This reality has bred resentment, distrust, and disinterest in politics, especially of political moderates and “status quo” politicians. All major left-wing opposition has been suppressed, or neutered, and as a result the only truly “oppositional” seeming politics come from far right nut jobs and they end up being the release valve for the political frustration. People can only hear “the economy is doing great”, while watching their children struggle to afford even a modest standard of living (by the standards we’ve come to expect) for so long before they become desperate for a significant change.

George Bush Jr. has the most impressive ability to sound like the dumbest motherfucker in the room always. He should also be tried as a war criminal.

Liberals should be careful with this. Y’all want them to feel like Trump did alright. We can’t have him being switched out at the 11th hour for a more competent candidate

Who does IP serve? It seems to me it serves very wealthy people who have the legal means to protect it. With that in mind, I think we should just get rid of it.

My county has very much felt it has a stake in your country, whatever country that may be. We probably enforced that stake with weapons at some point.

My countrymen spend a lot of time pontificating on how they feel about other countries. I think it is entierly welcome that people other than Americans and Europeans have some discussions about us.

I sincerely hope that some of my fellow Americans get mad about the things you might have to say about us. We very much deserve it.

https://youtu.be/X9FGRkqUdf8?si=L3qIpoF6TfV5S8D9

This really saddens me. I’ve lived within a few miles the coast basically my whole life and I’ve seen the floods get worse; Friends’ houses getting ruined. The river that flows by my house to the sea regularly consumes the nearest neighborhood to it now, once a year or so. Noone is moving because of it. People are moving here, in fact, and all the new houses are on stilts with first floor parking. I know it’s gonna keep getting worse, and when it finally gets bad enough, where are these people gonna move. All the “nice” towns a little further inland are entierly single-family zoned and woefully unprepared for all the people who will have to move. My town’s population is like 6 of those “nice towns”, and like half of it is gonna be underwater or so flood prone that you can’t live there. It’s gonna be really bad.

Andres Malm suggests in his book “Fossil Capital” that part of the reason that fossil fuels (stocks of energy) are so profitable is that you can pick and choose when to extract and then again when to release the energy stored in them, which will always be more profitable than, for instance, wind and solar (flows of energy) because you can manipulate production to prevent over supply, and choose when to release energy instead of waiting for the energy to be available in the flow. The higher capability to profit means that they will remain more profitable than renewables long after any other sort of calculation other than “profitability” would favor the renewables (cost to produce, damage to the environment, ability to satisfy energy demand).

Ok, let’s say the ceasefire deal does exist and is “inside the 10-yard line”. Is it going to be another Camp David and kick the can down the road until we have another round of murder, or are there provisions about a international peacekeeping force and a credible path to Palestinian state hood?