I mean a good politician, in my view, needs to be more than competent. They need to have ideas, decent morals, care about the people who gave them power and respect the promises they made to those people. If they don't do these things but are very good at fundraising and behind the curtain moves, they can be very competent and successful in their profession, but I wouldn't call them good politicians.
I agree but all those things are included on what makes a politician competent to me
Rubio has the ability to be competent, I'd say, but he currently isn't a competent politician because he's disappeared up Trump's arse. It's Trump first, himself second, and the USA last.
I mean a good politician, in my view, needs to be more than competent. They need to have ideas, decent morals, care about the people who gave them power and respect the promises they made to those people. If they don't do these things but are very good at fundraising and behind the curtain moves, they can be very competent and successful in their profession, but I wouldn't call them good politicians.
Given there's probably a good chance you could count the number of politicans that fit your criteria of being good throughout history on your fingers I reckon most people would be happy with competent
I mean a good politician, in my view, needs to be more than competent. They need to have ideas, decent morals, care about the people who gave them power and respect the promises they made to those people. If they don't do these things but are very good at fundraising and behind the curtain moves, they can be very competent and successful in their profession, but I wouldn't call them good politicians.
That ship's long gone. It used to be in the 80s. Now it's a race to the bottom barrell as voters becomes dumber.
What we see today is the result of decades of "stipudification" of the masses, either by shrewd meticulate design or simply the by-product of technological advances
Either way, good luck getting elected doing the right thing, it just doesnt work out these days.. at least in the US
Given there's probably a good chance you could count the number of politicans that fit your criteria of being good throughout history on your fingers I reckon most people would be happy with competent
That ship's long gone. It used to be in the 80s. Now it's a race to the bottom barrell as voters becomes dumber.
What we see today is the result of decades of "stipudification" of the masses, either by shrewd meticulate design or simply the by-product of technological advances
Either way, good luck getting elected doing the right thing, it just doesnt work out these days.. at least in the US
I hope those who call for the ‘supporters of terrorism’ to be deported are also in favour of detaining and deporting those who have gone to fight for the IDF to kill Palestinian children?
For there is no worse crime than the murder of children right?
I hope those who call for the supporters of terrorism are also in favour of detaining and deporting those who have gone to fight for the IDF to kill Palestinian children?
For there is no worse crime than the murder of children right?
Unfortunately there is no time machine we can back in. As I said to Raoul above it doesn't matter about his past, he's adopted MAGA now, where it truly matters.
Edit: wanted to know more about your assertions about Rubio as honestly I want to understand more about it, so spoke to my good friend chatgpt,
Your assertion that Senator Marco Rubio played a pivotal role in strengthening the United States' commitments to NATO is accurate. In 2023, Rubio co-sponsored a bipartisan amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) alongside Senator Tim Kaine. This amendment mandates that any decision by a U.S. president to withdraw from NATO requires the approval of two-thirds of the Senate or an act of Congress, thereby preventing unilateral presidential action in this regard.
However, the claim that Rubio was solely responsible for amendments to the NDAA requiring an overwhelming supermajority in both houses to revoke legislation is not substantiated by available information. While the NATO withdrawal provision does necessitate a two-thirds Senate majority, there is no clear evidence that Rubio independently introduced amendments imposing such stringent requirements across all defense policies. Legislative processes typically involve collaboration among multiple lawmakers, and attributing comprehensive defense policy amendments to a single individual would not accurately reflect the collective nature of congressional actions.
Additionally, the assertion that military deployments cannot be unilaterally terminated by the President is not entirely accurate. The President, as Commander-in-Chief, possesses significant authority over military operations, including the deployment and withdrawal of troops. While Congress holds the power to declare war and control defense funding, the President retains considerable discretion in operational military decisions.
In summary, while Senator Rubio has significantly influenced specific aspects of U.S. defense policy, particularly concerning NATO, the broader claims about his unilateral imposition of supermajority requirements for revoking defense legislation and limitations on presidential authority over military deployments are not fully supported by available evidence.
Claim: Rubio inserted a provision that requires certain amendments pass a supermajority to revoke.
ChatGPT: This is not true. But actually it is true, but there is no evidence for it being true, apart from the evidence of a 2/3rds supermajority.
But I didn't say everything in NDAA required a supermajority, just certain amendments that Rubio put forward to be "Trump proof" The NDAA also guarantees a US deployment in Europe, though not by law but by proxy.
I hope those who call for the ‘supporters of terrorism’ to be deported are also in favour of detaining and deporting those who have gone to fight for the IDF to kill Palestinian children?
For there is no worse crime than the murder of children right?
I keep reading about how TSLA stocks have plunged but when I look it up on google, it looks like the stock is doing better now than 6 months ago. So long term investors are not taking a hit and it’s not “plunging”. What am I missing?
You’re right, a lot of it is just internet cope. It has plunged from when it peaked, but the price is still hyper-inflated and as you say higher than 6 months or a year ago.
The stock price in itself is not a concern for Musk yet. What is more problematic for him is the sales numbers coming out of Europe, Asia and Australia. Q1 financials could be really bad and then the stock could actually take a meaningful hit. Beyond the Musk connection Tesla has a stale product line and a lot more competition. They aren’t in a good spot.
I keep reading about how TSLA stocks have plunged but when I look it up on google, it looks like the stock is doing better now than 6 months ago. So long term investors are not taking a hit and it’s not “plunging”. What am I missing?
I feel bad for anyone that unwittingly owns a Tesla or anyone who it’s impacted financially but the schadenfreude I would get watching that company go under would be off the charts.
I feel bad for anyone that unwittingly owns a Tesla or anyone who it’s impacted financially but the schadenfreude I would get watching that company go under would be off the charts.
Yeah I can imagine a few Tesla owners were actually trying to save the planet by moving to electric, kinda like the South Park episode where people start buying hybrids, only for them to become associated with hate
Yeah I can imagine a few Tesla owners were actually trying to save the planet by moving to electric, kinda like the South Park episode where people start buying hybrids, only for them to become associated with hate
I feel bad for anyone that unwittingly owns a Tesla or anyone who it’s impacted financially but the schadenfreude I would get watching that company go under would be off the charts.
Yeah I can imagine a few Tesla owners were actually trying to save the planet by moving to electric, kinda like the South Park episode where people start buying hybrids, only for them to become associated with hate
So the US supported apartheid South Africa and supports apartheid Israel, and now expels the ambassador of countries who oppose apartheid.
I hope this is the end of the American illusion that they are the ‘leaders of the free world,’ and some sort of champion of human rights and democracy. It’s a cesspit.
All I know about Tesla is that there is a Chinese car you can get for less than half the price which does the same thing. The American protectionist administrations saw this as a threat and so imposed tariffs on these cars. Thus, what you can buy in the EU afaik for about 40k from China (directly undercutting Tesla in price and with the same function) costs twice that or something in the US which means they are anti-their-own-citizenry. They force their citizens to pay more when there are options for the same class of thing which would cost less.
And economist made a solid point. You can see the rationale behind reactionary protection of this or that car (generally) but down the line and all throughout the economy the price of transport rises as a consequence (trucking and haulage by vehicle is hit). This makes everything more expensive than it ought to be which means it is a tariff against yourself in the long run. They just cannot stand to be outcompeted. And they are in a whole series of areas and so just lob a tariff or a ban on something that if it were produced in America, or American owned, would face no such problems.
That's not a serious economy.
Other than that, it's a big mistake for Musk to be so intertwined with it and also so politically active when the middle class, his target audience, are precisely the ones who will refuse to buy these cars (not insignificantly) due to his association. He is constant negative advertising for his own companies. That's hard to do at the scale he does it. You cannot call that smart or intelligent. Become a hate figure to a large part of the nation which buys your products and you will get a boycott reaction. Obvious stuff. You never heard of Gates outside of the anti-trust legal stuff and then his alleged philanthropy unless you were in one of those silos where he was the devil. A bit like the mob with John Gotti. People don't like rich people and never really have. It takes them a few minutes to confirm this opinion and so the ones who are least visible last the longest.
Especially in tech which is as "big pharma" (or will be in a few years). No one likes the industry unless it is directly paying you.
"This is a difficult day for our entire community. The termination of more than $800 million in USAID funding is now forcing us to wind down critical work here in Baltimore and internationally," the school, a leading institution of scientific research, said in a statement.
[Maryland is being punished by what’s going on. People in our community are having a rough time, but sadly they are not the only ones.]
I wonder what the folks in government think will happen when thousands of employees across organizations are let go around the same time.
Unemployment numbers will soon rise and the economy will stagnate if not already.
