Because while there have been a few noticeable rejections, such as the tariff ruling, its been a majority of heads he wins, tails his opponent loses, with this court.
> while there have been a few noticeable rejections, such as the tariff ruling, its been a majority of heads he wins, tails his opponent loses, with this court
While "the Supreme Court overwhelmingly sided with the Trump administration," it has been far from the "control" rhetoric posited above. Most of this was on the emergency docket. Major cases have been decided against Trump, from reimbursements for DOGE cancellations to restricting Trump's use of the Alient Enemiest Act and National Guard [1].
Those notables are not consistent with a fascist court, but a very right-wing one. Between those two are a lot of ground.
> Those notables are not consistent with a fascist court, but a very right-wing one. Between those two are a lot of ground.
That’s an opinion you can have but that I don’t share. I also would posit that the current SCOTUS thinks they still can maintain control while ceding further and further power to an imperial presidency when Trump is in charge.
The existence of some major cases being decided against Trump when the majority have been decided for him and the opposite logic is applied to presidents on the other side, are only part of why this current conservative government keeps checking off the 14 points of ur-fascism
> I refuse to believe anyone in the decision chain would move forward if they believed kids were going to be killed. If you do - how can you? Why would they?
Because they’re openly callous and contemptful of anyone they don’t consider a heritage American? Because the admin has already abused children to lure out parents in their anti immigrant push?
And that’s before getting into the Epstein file allegations and if he raped and killed kids already.
I’m gonna throw it back on you, how can you believe that this admin cares if foreign kids die?
we are speaking politicians who make a habit of bluster and liking "shows of force" and are openly contemptful of the lives of those who don't agree with or look like them
some of them believe that it is their religious duty to start this war and make it heinous enough to start ww3 and bring forth the return of jesus christ
I think you are ascribing a level of systems thinking and care about consequences which one cannot simply assume is there
if you were to, say, start with an assumption that some of the actors have the mental patterns and world model of an angsty, self-centered teenager, or younger, then you might draw different conclusions
You have evidence in front of you on a weekly basis of these people being that evil and that stupid, and we’re coming up on 2 years of that playing out.
Because the capital owning class in America commonly has an aversion to labor.
Labor is other humans and all their social hierarchy monkey brain bullshit activates in a way that a machine doesn’t. That’s why you’ll see companies spending equivalent or even slightly more money for a tool to do a job over a human being.
Walmart employs this amount of workers only because it is subsided by food stamps and other government assistance. The minute they were forced to actually pay for the labor they employ would fire a lot of people
You are suggesting that if the government gives you a tax break, your boss would lower your salary? Why does your boss wait for the tax break or handout and doesn't just lower your salary now?
Also what's your counterfactual here? If Walmart fired their employees tomorrow and replaced them with robots, those ex-employees would magically no longer need food stamps nor government assistance? (Or more realistically: Walmart could pivot to the Aldi model of labour and replace many low intensity jobs with fewer higher intensity jobs. For the affected workers, the outcome is the same.)
If those ex-workers don't magically get off government assistance, if Walmart is out of the picture, in what sense is Walmart to blame for their poverty?
Conversely: if Walmart laying off these workers would magically improve their welfare, why do these workers wait for Walmart to lay them off?
> Walmart could pivot to the Aldi model of labour and replace many low intensity jobs with fewer higher intensity jobs.
Yes, this is the expected change.
> For the affected workers, the outcome is the same.
No? There are two classes of affected workers:
1. Workers who have been converted to full-time with benefits. These workers benefit from the change.
2. Workers who lose their jobs. These workers are worse off.
Your argument ignores class 1.
I don't think we'll get anywhere debating the relative merits of the tradeoff of those two groups, but I personally prefer the existence of class 1. At least with that class there are some winners.
There's practically no (1). It's a different class of workers, of people than who Walmart currently employs at low intensity and low pay.
People who prefer a higher intensity, higher paying job than the bottom rung at Walmart can already get that kind of job today. They don't need to wait for Walmart to fire everyone else.
Walmart has some of these jobs already, probably. But Aldi and other companies exist. The whole Jeff Bezo's workout at Amazon Warehouses falls in a similar category too: Amazon pays pretty well for the sector and requires no prior experience, but they expect you to stay on your feed throughout.
> Walmart employs this amount of workers only because it is subsided by food stamps
And then those food stamps are used at Walmart, its a win win for Walmart and Walmart. No other country gives their poor food stamps instead of money, I wonder why?
Because in every thread about EVs someone has to chime in with their niche gas only use case, as if that somehow matters to the overall needs of the vast majority of drivers. Cool, you area niche need. Don’t buy an ev for 10 years or so.
You know the airports are open for multiple shifts per day, seven days a week, people take vacations, people get sick, and all that nasty variability that comes into place for staffing.
We’ve been understaffed on ATCs for years. Whatever the number that currently exists is not enough regardless of whatever back of the napkin math you can come up with. We just need more ATCs.
But that costs money and why would you spend money on redundancies in your system when you could cut costs and call it efficient.
Openly corrupt markets that feature insiders with secret knowledge taking money from gambling addicts and rubes is actually good cause the crowd is now wiser.
Unironically yes. Someone bet a mid sized amount and now we all share in that potential insider knowledge. A small scale example is my spouse said that the election odds from her home country were not realistic because all the westerners were betting a candidate would win but weren’t accounting for corruption that she felt was guaranteed to happen. Turns out she was right.
Ah good. The NBA/NFL/MLB/etc should let players bet on whether they win or lose. Letting those with the influence on events being able to make money on them has never degraded a system before.
Someone must have just mistakenly put in regulations against insider trading before, for no good reason. Luckily this isn’t anything like the normal tech play of figuring out a loophole or flat out ignoring the law and hoping you get too big before the regulators catch up.
If athletes didn't face consequences for manipulating betting markets, I think you'd see people become less and less likely to bet on sports outcomes. People naturally don't like a rigged game, you don't have to tell them not to play it.
With these betting markets, do you think it's critical that they exist, but with bans on insider bets? Because I'm not sure anyone you are moralizing at is taking up the argument that it's critical that they exist.
Sports betting is specifically not a prediction market precisely because the players are banned by both law and extreme consequences from their leagues for participating.
You cannot have an open-ended prediction market with the same protections. It's just impossible from a practical standpoint, much less theoretical one.
I don't think these should be legal since it's just enabling more random gambling, fraud, etc. or even worse for no clear societal gain. But if they do exist, the only purpose for them is to lure out insider information into the open. Pretending they are just folks gambling on 'random' outcomes like a fair coin flip is naive at best.
Exactly. And also a solid chunk of the 20th century. "Starting a war" can be a bit of a fuzzy delineation, but reasonably-speaking, it's been over 60 years since a Democratic president started a war (Vietnam war in 1965). For whatever reason, these types of facts never seem to budge the "BOTH SIDES BAD" types, though.
They have to have at least 2 different materials as well. The temporary trays were much softer and I had almost ground through them in my sleep by the time I had to switch to the next one but the final set is much more robust.
They literally aim to be dumber than average.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wonderlic_test
reply