Buy, Sell, Eat, Repeat,
Buy, Sell, Eat, Repeat,
Buy, Sell, Eat, Repeat,
Buy, Sell, Eat, Repeat.
What will the incentive be for these supposed new manufacturers, who just spent a whole lot of money building factories, to offer significantly lower prices than what Americans will have already gotten used to paying by the time said manufacturers have been able to build out their production facilities?
Better yet; Why would these manufacturers even invest in building out these supply lines when they can't be sure that the next administration won't remove the tariffs? Seems like a risky investment.
https://www.backblaze.com/blog/the-3-2-1-backup-strategy/
This person lost 3 months of work because they couldn't be assed to backup their data despite having three months to do so.
Never trust an OS, or a piece of software, to protect you. Protect yourself.
Harris stating that nothing would change
Are you referring to that one "The View" interview where she flubbed the question about what she would have done differently than Biden before returning to it later in the same interview to add in a bit about reaching across the aisle, or is she on record elsewhere saying that nothing would change during her presidency?
Because when I search for it all I see is tens of right-biased news outlets talking about that "The View" interview.
Looks like someone forgot about the 3-2-1 rule. Teachable moment.
I'll reserve judgement until the NHTSA. NCAP, and IIHS weigh in. I know the NHTSA and IIHS have declined to test due to the cost of the vehicle/testing vs low market share of the Cybertruck. As far as I understand NCAP has no plans to test since the design by default breaks EU regulations before you even consider crash testing.
I trust Tesla's internal testing about as much as I trust Boeing's internal testing.
WRT the first panel, I feel that way too.
That said, is this ragebait?
the US foreign policy never change between the two parties
This is such a reductionist take on an incredibly broad and complex topic that I have to wonder whether you're joking.
Isn’t it common knowledge at this point that Jill Stein is literally a spoil candidate
To all but the most naive it is.
I have no horse in this race, topically speaking, but your continual return to name-calling ("Cheney Dems", "Blue MAGA") belies your attempt to come across as a good-faith participant in this discussion. There are people out there that think differently than you, and there always will be. Using pejoratives, reducing people you don't know to mere "thought-terminating cliches", is not conducive to civil discussion or persuasive dialectics.
Very nice work. You beat me to the punch, but I'ma ride your coat-tails and post my version here anyway!
So then why not proof-read what you post? If you don't care enough to proof-read it, why should we care to read it?
No judgement intended here, English might not be your primary language, but it's "write it off", not "right it off".
Stein stans refusing to engage with this screencap while also arguing that it's okay because Stein disavowed Duke's endorsement:
Saying immigrants bring ‘bad genes’ echoes Trump’s history — and the and the world’s
With a mishmash of false claims about crime and ridiculous race science, Trump makes explicit the racism at the heart of his politics.
Former president Donald Trump has long espoused a worldview in which genes are the determinative factor in someone’s life. In 1988, for example, he told Oprah Winfrey that success requires luck — and that “you have to be born lucky in the sense that you have to have the right genes.”
In a 1990 interview, he said that he would not have followed in his father’s footsteps had he been born into a coal-mining family rather than a rent-mining one.
“The coal miner gets black-lung disease, his son gets it, then his son,” he said. “If I had been the son of a coal miner, I would have left the damn mines.” This, he said, was because he, unlike those poor coal miners, had the “ability to become an entrepreneur, a great athlete, a great writer. You’re either born with it or you’re not.”
Trump has previously raised this theory of genetics on the campaign trail. In 2020, for example, he praised the “good genes” of people in Minnesota. He then offered a warning to those robust-gened Minnesotans: his opponent in his bid for reelection, Joe Biden, planned to “flood your state with an influx of refugees from Somalia.” The transition did not escape the notice of observers.
In an interview with right-wing radio host Hugh Hewitt on Monday morning, Trump’s suggestion that non-White immigrants are genetically inferior was made explicit.
The comment came as Trump was disparaging his opponent, Vice President Kamala Harris.
“How about allowing people to come through an open border,” he said, “13,000 of which were murderers, many of them murdered far more than one person and they’re now happily living in the United States?”
This is a false claim — “outrageously false,” in the wording of The Washington Post Fact Checker — based on a misrepresentation of numbers released by the government. That data indicated that there were about 13,000 immigrants who had committed murder but were not in custody by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Many, though, are in custody elsewhere, including at the state level. Nor were they all immigrants who arrived during the Biden administration; many were here under Trump, too.
Unchallenged by Hewitt, Trump continued on the subject.
“You know, now, a murderer, I believe this, it’s in their genes,” he said. “And we got a lot of bad genes in our country right now.” Reinforcing that he was talking about the “bad genes” of immigrants, Trump offered up more false claims based on the ICE data.
Hewitt, rather than contesting Trump’s genetic argument, shifted the conversation with no apparent irony to the federal criminal charges Trump himself faces. These, of course, are not a function of criminal genes, in Trump’s estimation, but instead of the political whims of Biden. (In reality, they are a function of Trump’s actions.)
Trump has a track record of dehumanizing immigrants, repeatedly referring to immigrants who commit crimes as “animals,” for example. He also has a record of disparaging immigrants in sweeping terms, aggregating them by nationality as a rationale for declaring them unwanted.
He does this with other nonimmigrant groups as well. Speaking to Hewitt, for example, Trump appeared to conflate “Jewish Americans” with “Israel” — as he has in the past.
“I think Israel has to do one thing: They have to get smart about Trump,” he said in the interview. “Because they don’t back me. I did more for Israel than anybody. I did more for the Jewish people than anybody. And it’s not a reciprocal, as they say. Not reciprocal.”
Here Hewitt did push back: His numbers, in Hewitt’s estimation, were improving among Jewish voters. But Trump replied that they “should be 100 percent.”
This inability to see nuance in cultural and national groups of which he isn’t a member is one thing. His claim that America was being flooded with “bad genes” thanks to new arrivals to the country is another thing entirely. It’s also one that might evoke unsettling historic parallels for some Jewish observers.
Beyond the racism of such claims, it’s also striking how self-serving Trump’s deployment of genetics is. Immigrants to the United States — like the Haitian immigrants now living legally in Ohio who were the target of lies by Trump and his running mate last month — are the ones who escaped the cycle of suffering that Trump referenced with his coal miner example. They are the ones who, in the face of natural disaster and political unrest, pulled up stakes and sought a new, better life. They are, according to Trump’s 1990 calculus, the winners of the same genetic lottery as him. Except that, unlike him, they haven’t been convicted of crimes.
But such inconsistencies aren’t important to Trump because the “genetics” thing isn’t based on evidence or science. It’s just a way for him (and by extension, some of his supporters) to view themselves as superior to the immigrants he’s scapegoating. This has always been the subtext to Trump’s politics. He’s just making it more explicit.
Here's their list, if you're curious.
I post this not to endorse Jill Stein, but rather because I wanted to see the info for myself so that I could understand what they consider an "elected position".
I hope you'll at least consider putting in some legwork toward leftist praxis, as well. The things you're complaining about are not going to change if that's your only plan of action.
As a friend of mine liked to say... "Your passport to complaining is your willingness to do something about it."
If you're interested, I can point you to a number of local and national US-based leftist organizations that are working both inside and outside the electoral system. They would love to have more volunteers, or even coworkers (depending on how much free time you have). If you're already involved with direct leftist action, that's awesome! Please share them with others when you can, so that people can find ways to work toward effecting real change.
To muddle our analysis by insisting that fascism is already here, or that the Democratic party is fascist, or that liberals are fascists or the midwives of fascism, or that Democratic party voters are voting for fascism, is to disarm ourselves against the fascist threat. It is defeatism to shrug our shoulders saying that both parties are fascist, and a disservice to the many antifascist militants in our own country who have been killed, injured, and locked away in prison while struggling against this extremely serious threat. To assume that January 6th was a hyped-up myth, or to belittle its gravity, is a dereliction of our most solemn duty as Communists and workers in the belly of the beast.
https://www.cpusa.org/article/the-united-states-is-not-a-fascist-country/
Supposing that were true, what should we do about it?