Basically yes. The Trump regime is made up of the absolute worst kind of people. They seem utterly incapable of comprehending real solutions to any of the problems that we face. The only thing they know how to do is bark orders to do whatever simple thing can fit inside their own heads, and then resort to bullying if the subject does not comply. As such, it's prudent to avoid giving such people any more capabilities, which will inevitably be abused to harm our society. And the really sad part is how many otherwise-intelligent people they fooled (and continue to fool) with their hollow chest-thumping.
Yes, this is exactly the question I always have with the PE narratives - what do the supply-side incentives of PE look like? Is this an overall profitable activity where the vultures and their debt-backers win out? Is it merely profitable for the PE firm but a whole bunch of debt-bagholders lose out? Are those losers corporate junk bond stuffed into retirements funds and whatnot, but the funds' managers are happy with their own fees, and customers don't really notice the slightly lower returns from a few "bad investments" (but are still ultimately being swindled) ?
The article touches on this a little in vague terms, citing some studies, which is more than I can say for most. If this is an economically destructive dynamic, and it most certainly feels like it is, then some type of investor must be losing out, right?? It seems worth it to focus on who those parties are to see if that source of energy can be cut off.
I've got a handful of phone numbers, and the amount of spam each gets is quite different, seemingly based on their history. My longstanding gvoice number gets a some, my parents' old landline number gets more. Some numbers that came right from a VOIP provider get basically none.
When I was taking care of my dad in his final months, he had stopped answering the phone because of all the spam. I hooked an FXO ATA to his copper landline and connected it to Asterisk. When the caller ID was on the whitelist, it was allowed to ring. When the caller ID wasn't on the whitelist, Asterisk picked up, played SIT tones and "please try your call again", and made it so the number would be considered whitelisted for the next call (aka greylisting). This worked remarkably well for blocking the spam. And the one time a legit caller wasn't on the whitelist, they dutifully called back (I had fat-fingered my uncle's number in the whitelist, oops).
That is to say, I think there is a good market for telephony products tailored to specific use cases rather than just naively passing through every incoming call. There is no reason the kids' phones have to ring for anything but bona fide calls from their friends during appropriate hours.
(I also dream of setting up an on-hold system of "please continue to wait for your party", for calls from doctor's offices and the like where they're all too happy to drop a voicemail to consider their responsibility over, and then it becomes your responsibility to call them back and wade through multiple levels of phone trees just to put a note in the system for them to call you back again)
The commenter you're responding to has an enlightening perspective on many things, but can't resist the temptation of framing their arguments in a needlessly inflammatory manner that bites off just a little more than is actually defensible. I chalk it up to age.
Well said. The outcome with the tariffs should be a clear indicator of the administration's complete incompetence. Unfortunately Trump's one skill is confidence games and his hardcore supporters will end up writing it off as something like "deep state" sabotage.
This utter lack of leadership being displayed so clearly in ~June of 2020 was what really soured me on Trump. Up until then I had been both sidesing and figuring that when push came to shove, he'd actually lead (and get a shoe-in second term to boot!). But no, rather than accepting Covid as a national emergency that he needed to lead us through, it was just some new backdrop to foment division over.
I assume this "letter of reprimand" is merely a formality before actual criminal charges are filed, right? Or can we all violate Georgia's election laws with impunity until we each receive our own sternly-worded "letter of reprimand" ?
By an earnest suggestion from an administration that respects the United States, our freedoms, and our institutions. Not an implicit threat from a wannabe dictator who hangs giant pictures of himself up on government buildings to glorify himself, throws vindictive hissy fits when he doesn't get his way, and rambles at length about how he hates most American values.
How could the current administration appropriately suggest—and how could any institution earnestly commemorate—a democracy with all things considered with respect to its present state?
The fundamental problem is that it can't, because the current administration does not support democracy, which relies on the rule of law. Its leadership style is based on fomenting division to rally true believers, rather than broad-appeal attempts at constructive policy. So appeals to come together to celebrate what we have in common come off as hollow Orwellian doublespeak.
The question is basically in the realm of how do you celebrate someone's birthday when their wife just died? Yes, it's the country's 250 birthday, but we're currently going through a very dark period that does not reflect well onto the lofty ideals we take as our country's founding.
Was my line of questioning absurd or offensive to you?
I’m happy to withhold my own points to figure out more from another’s if they choose to present them and I don’t have a problem with acknowledging when they beat me to a constructive one and thank them for it.
The whole exchange feels in the realm of "just asking questions" both-sidesism. With this last comment I can see how that is perhaps not your goal, but it's close enough that it feels like it.
There is something here I am still chewing on - where does good-faith asking questions from a non-fully-fleshed-out place actually fit in modern large-scale Internet forum discourse? It's a crappy dynamic [0] to reflexively jump against that, but the "just asking questions" attack has been pretty damn effective too.
[0] in case it's unclear: I'm examining my own judgement, this isn't directed at you
> If I made a good point, you could have signaled agreement.
Great point! [Deliberately mimicking an LLM here—not dismissively, but in jest.]
In all serious though, I understand where you’re coming from and I am aware that my approach throughout this thread is agitating. My response was a legitimate attempt to express appreciation for the time you spent answering my questions.
To be honest I was hesitant to signal agreement because I was worried that you’d interpret the entire exchange as me goading you into a point that I otherwise could’ve made on my own. I didn’t want you to think that you were working for my approval.
> where does good-faith asking questions from a non-fully-fleshed-out place actually fit in modern large-scale Internet forum discourse? It's a crappy dynamic…
Hope you don’t mind the ellipse where I left it. I do agree with this all though. And I don’t think the dynamic is inherent crappy [1], but in society’s current state and especially online it is; particularly when a certain line of questioning can be reasonably interpreted as provocative instead of curious or congenial at best.
Are we supposed to signal to each other that we are of the same ideological tribe beforehand? And what if we aren’t?
[1] I did break the quote there to gently diverge from what you actually said about reflexively jumping against the dynamic; In a way I don’t think I’m diverging though, maybe giving my take on why it’s crappy to jump, in a way I’m claiming my own judgmental stake alongside your own.
I know what I’m doing puts a strain on another person’s the cognitive bandwidth. I think that’s sort of the point. In return I reckon I presume the role of a knave.
What’s interesting is seeing how long a person tolerates my advances and how their answers develop.
Lately my primary motive is to try to drive discussions past exchanging platitudes toward something more…I don’t know yet. I started with that LLM reference for a reason but this comment is already long. If you even read this maybe you can sort of catch my drift.
"Nationalistic" is not a synonym for "national interest". And the point was not just that its nationalistic content, but rather that broadcasters are being pressured to air it.
I'm not sure who you expect to push for airing essentially patriotic ads and content, besides the government. It is not necessarily nefarious. We need to have some modicum of civic mindedness and that needs to come from somewhere. The government itself is at least usually not partisan when it comes to generic campaigns like this.
For starters, nobody needs to push "patriotic ads". When the country does good things worth being proud of, patriotism arises naturally.
But either way, the grave error here is conflating civic mindedness as having anything to do with the current administration. These clowns would find a way to divide us over a children's spelling bee.
I don't think it "arises naturally" -- Our country is still something to be proud of, despite its flaws, and patriotism is a dirty word these days. The current administration is mainly seen as unusually divisive because of a relentless smear campaign against Trump conducted over a period of about 10 years. He's no saint, but if you look at it objectively then this breathless hysteria is unwarranted and downright harmful.
Smear campaign? It's the man's own actions - incompetence backed up with divisive bullying. If you don't see that, then you're still in the reality distortion field.
As for patriotism, I see quite a lot of it at the weekly protest I drive by and sometimes attend. As I said, it arises naturally.
He has an obnoxious personality but that's the extent of it. It's not I who is "in the reality distortion field."
Protesting makes sense sometimes but I'm not going to sit here and say that they are all patriotic. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that we have different ideas of what is a patriotic, much less worthwhile, protest.
No, that is not the "extent of it". Trump's obnoxious personality serves as a distraction from the abject incompetence, and it is apparently still working on you. The general pattern I've seen is that he picks a position, no matter how outlandish or impractical, that gets the most vocal support. He then claims to be doing something about it with some token actions. When anybody points out the glaring flaws, he and his cult of believers go to work attacking the critics.
For a recent example, see his atrocious failure on tariffs. A supposed mandate to do something about bringing American industry back, plus a Republican majority in both houses of Congress. But then the main plan merely consisted of tariffs that could have worked twenty years ago, applied in a simplistic blanket manner that harms domestic industry? And still even then the whole push ends up being a giant failjob for not doing the basic work to get them passed into law! But of course the enemy-scapegoat will always end up being someone else, because making excuses is Trump's only skill.
Some of these dynamics have terribly destructive results, especially with regards to our individual liberties. For example, the terrorist attacks on American cities - hence the protesting. And protesting about the violation of our natural rights as laid out in our country's founding documents seems pretty damn patriotic to me.
> relentless smear campaign against Trump conducted over a period of about 10 years. He's no saint, but if you look at it objectively then this breathless hysteria is unwarranted and downright harmful.
it is almost like Trump has been a public figure his entire life and in politics (after being best buds (as well as a donor) with the Clintons and the likes his entire life) only small percentage of his life. so we know who he is and we have always known who he is well before this "10 year smear campaign" - too funny to always read about this "oh Trump good, everyone's out to get him"
This seems like something the current SCOTUS might shut down in 13 months. Long enough to do some real damage to our country, but short enough that true believers will claim it was never given a chance.
reply