I acknowledge that no individual American is responsible for any of this, and many are opposed to the Trump administration. However, I’m still angry and frustrated at America generally and it’s very difficult to separate that from my feelings toward an anonymous American I interact with in the fediverse.
You're doing critical self-examination unlike what some "America bad = all individual Americans bad" emotional onanists here do, and I appreciate that.
But further, there is no true moral defense for collective punishment, and all of that philosophical foundation applies to collective blame. For example, collective punishment violates both the Hague international legal principles and the Geneva Convention. It is contrary to Kantian ethics (and if you're using utilitarianism to justify depriving people of individual moral agency, then we have nothing to discuss). There is plenty more food for thought here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_punishment .
Blame people who support and act in support of Trump. But don't blame people who oppose Trump and act in opposition to Trump. It's pretty easy to understand, morally-sound logic.
Ow, that hurt just to watch. Actually, after seeing the media give such a vicious beatdown, the billionaire seems like the underdog - we should really root for them instead!
As noted in other stories posted for this, Collins asked her GOPal in the DHS for the change, which is the surefire way you know it's unserious, temporary, and meant only to dampen bad headlines until the election:
King's spokesman Matthew Felling says the Department of Homeland Security confirmed the policy shift. Maine Sen. Susan Collins also posted on X Tuesday that she had called for change.
"I spoke with DHS Secretary Mullin last night and urged him to cease all non-urgent vehicle stops," she wrote.
Miami-based U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams found that Trump and the IRS, which he oversees as president, were not truly adverse to each other as is required in civil lawsuits under the U.S. Constitution. Williams referred a Trump lawyer in the case, Alejandro Brito, and senior Justice Department officials who signed off on the settlement to state bar authorities to determine if their actions violated legal ethics rules.
"This action was never about a party seeking judicial resolution of a legal issue or a factual dispute," Williams wrote. The judge said it was instead an attempt to "provide some legitimacy to an agreement to confer immunity to people and entities affiliated with the president and to earmark billions of dollars from American taxpayers to redress grievances not defined in the law."
Williams' order bars any of the parties in the case, including Trump, his adult sons and his namesake company, from referring to the settlement or citing any of its terms in future legal proceedings, a move that could nullify the portion of the agreement barring the IRS from pursuing any audits into past tax claims involving Trump or his businesses.
This is the minimum amount we should expect from the rule of law, but I'll take whatever wins we can get. Good for this judge for stating the obvious, which apparently only heroes have the courage to do in 2026.
This is a great guess, because it's one of the few ways that explains the lower prices but also allows Trump to both grift public resources to his friends while getting unearned positive MAGA publicity.
I wanted Platner to be the guy because I do think in this moment, he would have won.
But I know first hand how traditional newspaper legal sourcing and corroboration works (yes, for all they are hateable for other reasons, that includes the NYT). Once you know how careful they are with sources, because the potential exists for even a single defamation lawsuit to utterly bankrupt the company, then you know the details in that article are both credible and passing those checks would not have been fakeable without an incredibly elaborate conspiracy.
That doesn't mean the allegations are true, but I believe it's likely they are true.
Just to be clear: The fund has been (for now, stay tuned) abandoned, but it was always going to come from taxpayers, which rarely if ever means the Epstein class.
I'm not sure there's anything surprising there... They all hate his guts, since most of them are rational people and have the benefit of plenty of intelligence profiling confirming what we all know, that he's a genuine sociopathic narcissist and is easily manipulated.
They're doing what needs to be done to weather a violent storm, trying to manipulate him towards good (or less evil) to counteract Putin manipulating him towards evil (or more evil), and nothing more.
I suspect, with gerrymandering the House creating a nearly insurmountable GOP advantage (would not be surprised to see nationally +5-10% democratic votes but end up with a GOP House majority), this may be the moment non-fascists lost any chance to avoid a trifecta MAGA government for the next two years - and maybe beyond.
To be clear, I am not blaming this on anyone but Platner, to the extent we can (as we must) guess at the truth without a criminal investigation and trial. But I admit, I would have really liked for these stories to be not true. I could buy him lacking awareness of the tattoo, and further his uncovered private Reddit posts corroborated that he legitimately was going to fight for left causes and was not a Fetterman. And the timing means the story being released now is suspicious as hell.
But corroboration as detailed as this, with reliable journalism checking contemporaneous sources, makes the story credible. After all, the likely fact that it's a political hit piece doesn't make it not true, and in fact the ideal hit piece is one that is true. And if this story is true, then yes, that disqualifies him and also means he likely would lose the general even if he didn't withdraw. This isn't a Franken if the story is true - Franken was sacrificed by Gillibrand and others for a stupid but ultimately harmless photo, not any actual physical contact or conduct at all.
I agree with everyone here dooming about Maine's chances now, though. Democratic insiders will always choose a safe loss over a risky victory.
Obviously we need to keep pushing as hard as we can to salvage November, but also keep one eye on what we need to do to resist the next stage of politically unopposed fascism from 2027-2028 (as if figuring out how to resist the fascism already here wasn't enough).
Well, I take that to mean that Google (ad profit), Meta (ad profit), and Nvidia (hardware profit) are profitable companies even if AI is a notorious money-sink. I do agree that if they weren't able to absorb vertigo-inducing billions of dollars of AI losses via their other income, the AI bubble would have popped already.
It's important to remember, there's no point in fighting against a worse future. Especially if you are in the minority, since you'll lose anyway. Resign yourself to things getting objectively worse because nobody likes a whiner.
"Instead of chasing AI"? They heavily implement AI to lay off employees, even though it severely degrades service.
Their whole business model is just typical private equity nihilism. Buy a business with a lot of user inertia, strip out all the development and maintenance costs while leaving the bare essentials to keep subscriptions or ad revenue flowing, and let the hollowed out business zombie-walk as long as it makes money.
You're doing critical self-examination unlike what some "America bad = all individual Americans bad" emotional onanists here do, and I appreciate that.
But further, there is no true moral defense for collective punishment, and all of that philosophical foundation applies to collective blame. For example, collective punishment violates both the Hague international legal principles and the Geneva Convention. It is contrary to Kantian ethics (and if you're using utilitarianism to justify depriving people of individual moral agency, then we have nothing to discuss). There is plenty more food for thought here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_punishment .
Blame people who support and act in support of Trump. But don't blame people who oppose Trump and act in opposition to Trump. It's pretty easy to understand, morally-sound logic.