The red line for Trump's people unfortunately isn't doing anything bad. He could shoot a man on fifth avenue and not lose them. It would take him doing something which shows actual human decency and actually helps people. If he attempted to create "Trump-care" providing unconditional healthcare for all he would be impeached and out on his ass. God forbid if he were to recognize LGBTQ rights and acknowledge their legitimacy, that action would literally kill people from shock.
Exactly, the one area where he would lose the crowd is if he goes against the conservative "christians". ie: if he openly embraces LGBTQ, fully supports abortion rights, taxes churches etc. Only then would these people revolt.
> Nor any techie lose their minds when someone without a security clearance gets access to sensitive national networks.
There's something peculiar about how liberals are now so offended by "security" when the federal government has showed complete incompetence over the past decade or even more.
All the security clearance data was leaked from federal servers. What else do we have to lose. Never mind that countless federal employees see your social security info. It's regularly fraudulently submitted by illegal foreigners too.
None of the criticisms I've seen from you or others are alarming.
What was alarming was watching Biden for 4 years completely non compos mentis and a media filled with liberals who would censor and ridicule ANY mention of this obvious fact. That's the GRAVEST national security threat, everything else PALES in comparison, and not a peep from the people who lit their entire political capital on fire over the ridiculous patently-false charades to never admit fault.
I guarantee this will be the case, as it's been the case every election since forever including 2020 when liberals were fear-mongering (like they always do) when they were out of power.
Funny that just a few hours after this post, Trump starts referring to himself as "the King" on social media. I wonder if it’s a hint of something, like the time he said people won’t need to vote in 4 years.
> Ruining H1B prospects for many deserving candidates
H1B shouldn't exist, there is no shortage of domestic talent for what amounts to standard office work. The sort of things I've seen done by H1B is nothing short of appallingly bad which makes this whole debate all the more infuriating.
I would also group in "mis/disinformation" because it's such a clumsy phrase and people will often say both making it an even larger often-repeated verbal monstrosity.
It's interesting because, for me at least, there's an aesthetic quality to these phrases that is unmistakable.
> He’s been hired because of who he is rather than the skills he brings.
Were you calling Hunter Biden to account for his skills when it was revealed he made millions of dollars from Burisma in a role he ostensibly had no qualification?
I know you're trying to defend the indefensible but the Doctor of Law from Yale held a gun to a prostitute's head while smoking meth, and RECORDED IT.
He also sold his laptop full of incriminating evidence to a pawnshop.
Again, what does a depraved criminal drug addict have to offer to a Ukranian petroleum company? Well, he happens to be the vice president's son. Clear cut political corruption!
I think any intelligent person would rather hire Daniel Penny.
There's a shortage of air traffic controllers, and DEI policies have bungled hiring in the effort to constrain as much hiring as possible into minorities across practically every corporation.
Your argument for "crypto" applies to money. Money will lose 90% of its value over a century or so. In this case I don't have to "just hope someone else will pay more for it later" I know that money will be practically worthless if held.
I kind of agree. Money (e.g. the dollar) only has value because (1) we implicitly agreed as a society to have faith that it can be accepted by others for goods and services (2) the government requires us to pay a material part of our earnings as taxes which can only be paid using money.
If people lost faith, it would lose value.
Mild inflation (say 2-3pct a year) is considered generally good by economists. It’s an incentive to go and invest the money productively or spend that money on goods and services (which is good for growing the economy). Deflation in contrast would create an incentive to hoard money (just keep little papers with no productive value).
That’s a funny phrase and one that I think deserves ridicule.
Society should value savings, in fact historically prosperity is the result of savings and every fall from prosperity is accompanied by artificially low interest rates and low saving rates.
I don’t see how people would differentiate savings from hoarding when infinite compound debasement is supposedly the “smart” policy.
To be clear, I think people that say "hoarding" is bad, really mean to say that they think "saving" is bad and that they should identify as champions of consumerism.
If a company wants to expand and build a new factory (say to provide more, cheaper pharmaceuticals to more people), it needs capital. If you have cash but there’s deflation, you might just keep your cash under your pillow because it’s worth more every year. If instead we have an inflation, and so you have a disincentive to leave the cash under your pillow, you invest it (give to that company to fund its factory). That’s good for society.
> If instead we have an inflation, and so you have a disincentive to leave the cash under your pillow, you invest it (give to that company to fund its factory). That’s good for society.
There's a lot of "ifs" here with little evidence they're true or necessary.
Without examining all of the "ifs" let me just characterize the argument as fundamentally pro-corporation. I think it's better for society that corporations justify the money invested in them rather than artificially structuring the money such that people are forced to hand their money over to corporations as a form of wealth preservation because Paul Krugman said we'd have a Great Depression otherwise.
Large portions of the world are anti-intellectual, at the same time intellectuals are often much worse than the average person and frequently do deserve scorn as a class of people in society.
China is not anti-intellectual in the same way. I remember watching Xi’s new year speech a few years ago and he was highlighting specific scientific achievements, talking about astronauts, it was very different from a US presidential speech
Well Biden can't really give a speech due to being undeniably old to the point of incoherence (what led to him dropping his candidacy). Trump did Operation Warpspeed and created Space Force, and openly talked about that, he also openly supports Elon Musk running his own scientific enterprises. So I'm not sure what the argument is for America not talking about its own scientific achievements.
