Shuttering their central bank and converting to dollars… Meaning they aren’t actually getting rid of a central bank, but are rather converting to a foreign central bank.
No it’s worse than that. How are they going to purchase enough dollars to replace their own currency? No one is going to give Argentina a loan to do this.
You don’t get it! Whenever they need Dollars, they just buy them with their old currency and without a central bank, the government can just decide how much Pesos they have.
You get dollars the same way anyone else would in the situation: You carry a trade surplus vs. the United States and then allow tax payments to be made in dollars. Prices settle as a function of dollars available, rate of circulation, and volume of goods & services available.
The policy should produce a boost in exports & employment but also produce a shortage of goods normally imported. It'll also be a great time for Americans to visit, the dollar suddenly having a lot more purchasing power in Argentina.
The idea is that since the government can’t run a surplus by itself, he will break the capacity of running into deficit and making it so they don’t have any other choice.
It’s a nice-looking, simple idea that some countries try here and there and never work on practice.
It seems the whole point is adopting a currency they can’t print more of. Because of the ‘print more money’ thing doesn’t seem to be solving their inflation issues.
For some context, during the last 4 years the quantity of money our governemnt needed to print* was so high that our printers weren’t enough and we had to pay other countries to print more pesos.
To be fair, Argentina was never really self-sufficient in money-printing. Brazil has so much volatility on the usage of the printers that it’s always cheaper for other countries in South America to import.
But yes, the amount they have been importing recently was completely out of the norm.
For some context, during the last 4 years the quantity of money our governemnt needed to print* was so high that our printers weren’t enough and we had to pay other countries to print more pesos.
Usually in modern language “printing money” is simply the central bank moving a numbers on a spreadsheet, not necessarily creating new currency notes. This is especially true if the newly “printing money” is being used to repay foreign debts.
Are you saying Argentina is actually running out of currency? If so, where is it all going?
The goverment spends more than it can, so to pay it’s debts, the goverment print more and more money. This makes each bill to have less and less value generating inflation. So everyone needs more currency to pay for the same things, so the goverment prints even more money and the cicle never ends.
The goverment spends more than it can, so to pay it’s debts, the goverment print more and more money. This makes each bill to have less and less value generating inflation.
That’s a good explanation about how a government can cause rapid (or even hyper)-inflation, but most of this impact isn’t felt with people handling currency as far as number of bills they have to carry.
A government devaluing its currency usually prints larger denomination notes. As an example:
If a home appliance like a stove costs 100 Argentinian Pesos it might be paid for with ten 10 Peso notes for a total of 100 Pesos.
After a couple of years of rapid inflation the same stove might cost 2000 Argentinian Pesos. While someone buying a stove could technically still use two hundred 10 Peso notes for a total of 2000 Pesos, that’s a lot of currency to carry. Instead government print larger denomination notes. A quick look at the wikipedia page on the Argentinian Peso confirms what I’m talking about. In May of this year, they started printing a 2000 Peso note. So that stove from the example could be paid with a single note, not two hundred.
I would guess usually when these larger notes are being printed the same number of notes in circulation doesn’t need to change that much because the new notes are worth exponentially more than the old notes they would have produced in the same amount of time. In May of 2017 the smallest denomination note was 20 Pesos. However, in May 2023 the smallest denomination note is 100 Pesos.
If that is the case, where is the need to increase the number of notes in circulation, when the value of each note has gone up so much more?
It’s a very privileged position to come from but it’s still fucking wild to me the amount of influence religion still holds over the entire planet. It would be hilarious if it weren’t so terrifying
Western religions are a tool to control people and it was always about power and a false sense of superiority, but in the end it is a giant conspiracy theory where billions are entangled.
Why specify western? Confucianism and eastern philosophies are very controlling themselves. India’s backwards caste system is justified by their religion too.
Organized religions are all tools of control. There’s no regional exceptionalism here. Even Buddhism has a body count.
Just another piece of evidence that the west never actually cared about Ukraine or people living there. Ukrainians are just a pawn the west is using to try and weaken Russia with zero consideration for the lives of the people living there.
Well, the alternatives are heavy metal, which also aren’t the greatest to breathe in. It’s almost like war is aweful and this one shouldn’t have been started in the first place, but here we are…
And what, let the Russians steamroll Ukraine and take everything? Let them destroy a fledgling democracy? Right on the EU’s and NATO’s doorstep? Come on.
and shit while we’re at it, what the fuck do you think NATO has been doing its entire existence? it’s been destroying -actual- fledgling democracies, you monstrously hypocritical ass
let the Russians steamroll Ukraine and take everything?
I’ve noticed that every pro-NATO voice screaming “war good” has to pretend like the binary outcome of this war is a) Ukraine becomes Russia and every living inhabitant is genocided (see above comment from bibibi for case in point), or b) Ukraine heroically drives back Russia with magic in a completely asymmetrical and unwinnable war
Come on.
And then finishes their comment with something like this
There’s no material analysis to support any of this
The only way to get to that viewpoint is to believe Putin is an irrational, genocidal maniac hellbent on killing checks notes neighbors who are ethnically russian, who also desperately wants to push even more of Russia’s border right up against a hostile NATO. It’s no surprise that the people saying this shit are pro NATO and don’t understand the material reality underlying geopolitical conflicts like this one
Not gonna touch the “fledgeling democracy” thing, other comrades can dunk on that chefs-kiss
russian imperialism is a thing. People there are brainwashed with russia’s greatness ideas and expansion. putin’s actions just represent the will of russians.
The fact we were attacked and lost that many people is already a defeat. We lost this war when gave up nukes under the push of the west and russia. this together with naivness of our post-soviet people defined the path of our degradation. But it neither a win for russia, and won’t be. Russia was always corrupted just like Ukraine, it just got more resources and nukes, but that’s it. without the above fact and support of the west, maybe we would not be able to suppress them
Oh man I still remember the post that was leaked from russian government webpage on the 25th, a day after russian invaded. It was an absolute hard on about russian imperialism and how they will restore the good old russian empire or something, which included most slavic countries btw. It was taken down in hours but I checked that the addess was correct and legit. No proof of it since it’s been a year already and I saved nothing, so if you don’t believe it ignore me and please don’t spread this since I have no source anymore, but damn if it doesn’t paint a clear picture of russia’s intent on all of this since way before.
this damning evidence of Russia’s intentions would surely have motivated more countries to send aid to Ukraine. Why didn’t you take a screenshot?? you realize that you’re directly responsible for the deaths of thousand of Ukrainians, right???
not clear at all. no mention about ww2 in his comment. moreover we did not talk about ww2 before, so this is most likely a watabolistic attempt justifying killing ukrainians because some of our ancestors were participating in pogroms of jews.
if we were talking about xx and previous centuries, then I would also mention crimes done by russians, poles and germans toward ukrainians
Regarding antisemitism, I would also mention that pogroms in the russian empire especially in places jews were allowed to live in (see the Pale of Settlement) and in europe were common.
Collaborants were everywhere in europe, america and russia. Regarding latter, see nazi-soviet parade in Brest-Litovsk as an example. But for some reason you only mentrion ukrainians and Bandera.
Yes we are talking about Ukraine right now which is why Ukraine is coming up a lot
as I understand their point they were saying that as Ukrainian nationalists tried to kill their family they are not especially sympathetic to the cause of Ukrainian nationalism. I may be wrong of course but that is what I interpreted their statement as meaning
The real alternative is for Russians to go home. Who the fuck cares who’s using them? They’re being invaded. Russia didn’t need to invade them, but they thought they could get away with it (again). This isnt the first invasion of a sovereign country Russia has done. It isn’t even the first invasion of Ukraine. The US didn’t get involved in the others. Are we just going to excuse those?
Have you ever played 4x games? Do you know what encirclement is? When an opponent is ringing your territory with bases while they keep telling you it’s totally cool bro, they’re just working on their defenses while making alliances with players adjacent to you, what do you consider is their end game?
Yeah, everyone Russia has invaded has been for defence. Sure buddy. The real world is more complex than a 4X game, but even then you can use that to understand why someone would invade another country. They wanted to steal the resources and population. You may use your statement as a justification, but it is never the actual reason. The excuse of it being defensive is rediculous. Yeah, invading a sovereign country (multiple times) is sure to make the alliance “encircling” you stop. Seriously? Do you believe that rhetoric or are you just saying it because you’re supposed to?
I don’t know why people keep repeating this. Do you honestly think this is a coherent point? Russia is obviously not going to go home no matter how many times you’re going to repeat it. It’s a meaningless and useless statement that literally solves nothing. Either NATO can defeat Russia or not, so far it looks like NATO is not able to do so. What NATO is accomplishing is prolonging the conflict without changing the outcome. That means more people dying and having their lives ruined so that US military industry can make a profit and so that US can try and weaken Russia geopolitically. Anybody who thinks the west is in this conflict to help Ukraine is an utter imbecile.
Should the US have sent supplies to the allies in WWI and WWII before joining? It was just prolonging the war and causing people to die, right?
The reason the US is doing it is not morality. Everyone knows that. International politics is never about morality, it’s about power. However, that doesn’t mean it isn’t also the moral option.
Also, NATO and the US are not in the war. We’re sending supplies. The US isn’t even sending the good stuff. We’re sending parts of our stockpile that’s old and has just been sitting around waiting for a use. They haven’t sent the newer technology so it it isn’t studied in case a real enemy requires them to be used.
It takes an incredible amount of historical illiteracy to try and draw parallels between WW2 and the proxy war US is waging against Russia in Ukraine. However, if you weren’t historically illiterate, then you’d also know that US companies continued working with the nazis well into the war, and IBM is famously responsible for facilitating the holocaust.
Also, NATO and the US are very obviously in this war, and one has to be utterly intellectually dishonest to pretend otherwise.
When the US government was providing resources to the allies, was it good or bad? I’m not talking companies or anything else. You’re dodging the question. There are enough parallels to draw a comparison. You just know what the answer would be and it conflicts with your beliefs, so you can’t admit it, to yourself or others.
And this is why your comparison is historically illiterate. The actual comparison would be US funding the nazis in WW2. You’re either ignorant of whom US is propping up in Ukraine or you’re just dishonest. Either way not a good look.
I did answer your question in detail, and it’s safe to dismiss anybody who uses whataboutism as a form of argument. That’s just a logical fallacy that imbeciles use to try and create a double standard.
I did, and you crying about whataboutism is what I’m referring to. Anybody who calls out whataboutism as a form of argument is engaging in intellectual dishonesty. The question you set up is fundamentally wrong, and you’re fishing for an answer for that setup. This is like me asking you if you’ve stopped beating your wife.
I love that, in your opinion, calling out What-aboutism is “intellectual dishonesty” but using it is totally OK.
I also love that you say you both answered the question, and also that you didn’t because it was wrong to ask.
This is like me asking you if you’ve stopped beating your wife.
That’s be easy to answer for anyone being honest. It’s either “I never did”, “yes”, or “no”. Someone who want to hide something may not answer the question though, and likely they’ll do something to throw people off, like attacking them for something they did instead (aka, “what about…”). It’s avoiding the question.
Calling whataboutism simply serves to set up a double standard for yourself and others. That’s what makes it intellectually dishonest. Meanwhile, there is nothing intellectually dishonest about pointing out hypocrisy and double standards.
I also love that you say you both answered the question, and also that you didn’t because it was wrong to ask.
I answered your question by explaining to you in detail why the question is nonsensical. US is currently supporting fascists in Ukraine, trying to compare that to US supporting allies fighting against fascists in WW2 is backwards. The fact that you can’t comprehend that says volumes.
That’s be easy to answer for anyone being honest. It’s either “I never did”, “yes”, or “no”. Someone who want to hide something may not answer the question though, and likely they’ll do something to throw people off, like attacking them for something they did instead (aka, “what about…”). It’s avoiding the question.
Once again you missed the whole point there which is setting up a false premise and then trying to get the other person to work within that premise. This is precisely what you did with your question. Pointing that out isn’t avoiding the question it’s calling out your bullshit.
You brought up the example of the US in relation to WWII. If you make a comparison, you can’t get stroppy when people point out that it contradicts your main argument and in fact supports the argument that you’re trying to challenge.
However, for as long as you think the US is the Good Guy^TM^, you’re going to struggle to find examples that support your viewpoint, so you may want to be careful with any comparison. Otherwise, you’ll start to notice a pattern of them pointing out that the US was as monstrous as always in the cited example and then you’ll say they’re doing whataboutism ad infinitum.
It doesn’t contradict my example. Companies are not the government.
I don’t think the US are “the good guys.” There aren’t good guys in international politics. They don’t do things for moral reasons. I do think the invaders are bad, whichever war were talking about. The US happens to be giving supplies to the people fighting off an invasion now and in WWI and WWII.
You still didn’t answer the god damn question. Again, expected. You guys never answer the fucking question. You just go on offense because then you get to act smart and in control, but it makes you look weak and stupid. If you can’t answer a simple question then what good is your opinion?
The reason it seems like I’m dodging the question is because if I can challenge the assumptions in the question and show that it’s a faulty question, the answer becomes irrelevant. Still, if you keep reading, you’ll see that I have provided an answer below.
As for my opinion, it’s like anyone else’s. It isn’t worth much. My statements of fact, however… in a world where people try to paint the US in a positive light, endlessly making distinctions to deny any blame to the US state for all the horror that it unleashes on the world… probably also not worth much.
I either make a logical argument that stands up to scrutiny or I don’t. If my argument stands up, it doesn’t matter whether I look like a weak idiot. If my argument fails, it doesn’t matter if I pretend control or to appear smart or to act it.
For a bourgeois state, it is ahistorical to separate the government from it’s businesses. Companies and the government go hand in hand. It was, for example, the East India Company, rather than the British ‘state’, that colonised so much of Asia.
In relation to WWII and the US-Nazi connection, Michael Parenti wrote in Blackshirts and Reds: Rational Fascism and the Overthrow of Communism (City Lights Books, CA, 1997, p17):
Corporations like DuPont, Ford, General Motors, and ITT owned factories in enemy countries that produced fuel, tanks, and planes that wreaked havoc on Allied forces. After the war, instead of being prosecuted for treason, ITT collected $27 million from the U.S. government for war damages inflicted on its German plants by allied bombings. General Motors collected over $33 million. Pilots were given instructions not to hit factories in Germany that were owned by U.S. firms. Thus Cologne was almost levelled by Allied bombing but it’s Ford plant, providing military equipment for the Nazi army, was untouched; indeed German civilians began using the plant as an air raid shelter. [Citing Charles Higham, Trading with the Enemy (Dell, NY, 1983).]
Fn14: After the war, Herman Abs, head of the Deutsche Bank and in effect “Hitler’s paymaster,” was hailed by David Rockefeller as “the most important banker of our time.” … Rockefeller [failed to say] a word about Abs’ Nazi connections, his bank’s predatory incursions across Nazi occupied Europe, and his participation, as a board member of I.G. Farben, in the use of slave labor at Auschwitz: Robert Karl Miller, Portland Free Press, Sept/Oct 1994
All this, and we haven’t really touched on:
the way that US state officials intervened to—
protect Nazi war criminals from prosecution at Nuremberg,
rehabilitate and promote Nazi officials to lead NATO,
doing the all this with Mussolini and others,
how the US ruling class platformed Nazis in the US press and silenced critical domestic voices,
the relationship between the US government and its ruling bourgeois, the familial relations.
The US is to be applauded for is role in defeating the Nazi war machine, including supplying the allies. The US soldiers who fought the Nazis were heroes. But it is problematic to claim the US (i.e. it’s ruling class) was on the right side of history through that period.
Likewise, in Ukraine, the US worsened the whole mess, possibly caused it all, by meddling in the region since before the 90’s. Since the recent invasion US media and spokespersons have been nonchalantly saying the US has reaped many benefits from the war with very little cost (except for Ukrainians—added in parentheses, as if the Ukrainians are of secondary concern).
I do think the invaders are bad, whichever war were talking about.
I think we agree in principle and I think I know what you mean but I must raise a challenge. There’s an example that shows an invasion is not necessarily bad, the one that you pointed out: the Allies invading Nazi Germany.
If invasion is not bad in one example situation, then logically it doesn’t hold as a blanket statement. It cannot of itself lead us to conclude that Russia is bad for invading Ukraine. To be clear, I am not saying Russia is good for invading Ukraine; I’m saying it is not self evidently bad by virtue of being the invader.
To further the clear statement, I wish Russia had not invaded. I wish the war would end today. Short of that I wish a ceasefire could be negotiated for today, so that peace and an end to the war can be negotiated for the near future.
No flippant comments about how dangerous war is for the workers who must fight in it. Only firm conviction that the only right choice is to stop the killing and maiming as soon as possible, not to send increasingly dangerous weapons with increasingly higher chances of causing collateral damage.
Unfortunately for Ukraine, the US wanted the opposite at all stages and it’s representatives (officials and corporate agents) have machinated to ensure that war broke out and now that it cannot stop.
The west literally overthrew the legitimate and democratically elected government to install literal fascists in power who have been busy doing this the people in eastern Ukraine for the past either years. If this is news to you then take a sit because you have no clue regarding the subject you’re bloviating on here.
Fascinating. Can you show me more links about the west NOT invading, murdering, raping and kidnapping Ukrainians? Amazing that you think this somehow proves your point.
OMG, I didn’t know that. So the Russian fascist regime is actually maiming it’s own people in Ukraine in order to help Ukrainians? Fascinating. Please tell me more.
The truth is that it’s all quite hard to measure as Russia is lying about its economical figures (they make no sense whatsoever) and going via secondary indicators is possible, but also frought with uncertainty. But two things really stand out: a) investing in a war you’re losing is GDP flushed down the drain, b) they’re cut off from any advanced technology at even half-way reasonable prices, c) massive brain drain, there’s also d) report of very excessive inflation when it comes to food.
If they manage to raise GDP by exporting more oil or whatnot – that’s raising GDP. It’s not actually doing the country any good. More petrorubles for the kleptocrats.
But all that is rather besides the point. Russia, alongside with Ukraine, did a lot of stuff wrong in the 90s. Look at Estonia or e.g. Czechs (if you want to keep it among Slavs) on how to do it… nah, not right, but definitely better.
Ukraine then managed to turn around, develop an actual civil society and clip the wings of the oligarchy, Russia didn’t. That is what I mean with “perfectly capable of messing up on their own”. It’s also the reason for the war it’s a matter of regime stability: There’s plenty of family ties between Russia and Ukraine, if Russians see that Ukraine can escape the yoke of the kleptocrats then they could start to believe that they, too, can do that.
I expect you to have minimal technical literacy to put the link URL in archive.
The truth is that there is no actual evidence to indicate that Russian economy is struggling in any way.
a) investing in a war you’re losing is GDP flushed down the drain
That certainly explains why Europe is in a deep recession now and why US economy is looking shaky.
b) they’re cut off from any advanced technology at even half-way reasonable prices
Once you look at a map you’ll realize that Russia shares a huge border with China where all the advanced technology is produced nowadays. Trade between Russia and China has shot up to over 200 billion this year.
c) massive brain drain
Very little evidence for that actually happening, the article you linked is written by the same people who claimed Russia was a gas station with nukes, and that Russian economy was going to collapse months after western sanctions were imposed. If you haven’t figured out that you’ve been lied to yet, that really says a lot about you.
d) report of very excessive inflation when it comes to food.
Russia has very low food inflation and happens to be one of the major food producers globally. Once again, the fact that you think Russia has food inflation says volumes.
But all that is rather besides the point. Russia, alongside with Ukraine, did a lot of stuff wrong in the 90s. Look at Estonia or e.g. Czechs (if you want to keep it among Slavs) on how to do it… nah, not right, but definitely better.
We’re now seeing Russia having made it through two years of being cut off from the western economy, and doing well for itself. Meanwhile, countries like Estonia and Czech republic aren’t doing so hot. And frankly, it’s completely absurd to compare a country the size of Russia to a country like Estonia.
Ukraine then managed to turn around, develop an actual civil society and clip the wings of the oligarchy, Russia didn’t.
That’s complete and utter horseshit. Ukraine turned into the most corrupt country in Europe, and things have only kept getting worse. Ukraine started as a big industrial power after USSR collapsed, and now it’s been robbed entirely of anything of value.
There’s plenty of family ties between Russia and Ukraine, if Russians see that Ukraine can escape the yoke of the kleptocrats then they could start to believe that they, too, can do that.
What people in Russia see is that under west’s leadership Ukraine managed to become worse than Russia. All that did was convince people in Russia that the west was going to fuck them over exactly the same way they fucked Ukraine over.
Ukraine turned into the most corrupt country in Europe, and things have only kept getting worse.
Ukraine and Russia both did. One of them is making efforts to get out of that swamp.
I find it rather telling that of all the things you found weak retorts for, you completely left out the “More petrorubles for the kleptocrats” part, and how GDP is not a proper measure of the wealth of a people, at least in any even remotely leftist sense.
Ask Tuvans without access to electricity, running water, heck even a fucking gas station, how wealthy they are. Yet they’re not even counted as poor in the official statistics as the way poverty is counted in Russia is highly regional: If you’re poor in Moscow you count, if you’re infinitely worse off in the periphery you don’t.
That is why you see Russian soldiers – primarily from the periphery as joining the army is the only way to make any money as there’s no actual jobs – looting toilets. Fucking toilets. Back in WWII it was water faucets. Nothing the fuck has changed in that regard.
If you think that Putin is “draining the swamp” then you’re no less naive than your run off the mill Trumpet.
(Side note, speaking of WWII: Remember that Soviet flag on the Reichstag picture? That’s of a Ukrainian. Taken by a Ukrainian).
I find it rather telling that of all the things you found weak retorts for, you completely left out the “More petrorubles for the kleptocrats” part, and how GDP is not a proper measure of the wealth of a people, at least in any even remotely leftist sense.
There is zero indication to suggest that regular people in Russia are significantly effected in any way right now. Cost of food, housing, and other essentials has stayed stable.
That is why you see Russian soldiers – primarily from the periphery as joining the army is the only way to make any money as there’s no actual jobs – looting toilets. Fucking toilets. Back in WWII it was water faucets. Nothing the fuck has changed in that regard.
I mean if that’s what you’ve convinced yourself of then what else is there to say to you.
If you think that Putin is “draining the swamp” then you’re no less naive than your run off the mill Trumpet.
No, I don’t think Putin is draining any swamp, but I do think he runs a far more competent administration than western oligarchs.
(Side note, speaking of WWII: Remember that Soviet flag on the Reichstag picture? That’s of a Ukrainian. Taken by a Ukrainian).
And now thanks to the help from the west Ukraine is run by literal fascists. Maybe something you should reflect on.
In any case, this conversation is clearly pointless since you evidently live in an alternate reality. I’ll just let you figure things out on your own and reconcile the fantasies you’ve built up with the real world as it becomes increasingly more difficult to ignore going forward.
“Looting toilets” is the funniest part. Do you really believe that Ukraine is such pauper country that invading soldiers couldn’t loot anything more valuable than used toilets from occupied cities? It’s required to have literally zero critical thinking in order not to understand that this is propagandistic bullshit.
Like seriously, you’re arguing that Ukraine’s liberal democracy is somehow better than Russia, when the point of liberal democracies under late capitalism is to strip all the copper out of the walls (privatize, austeritize, union-bust), everywhere, all the time.
…and? The man is a successful comedian, has a production company, and everyone knew he’s a millionaire. Shuffling money offshore is how you keep it safe in a corrupt country.
No tax fraud, no shady business, no nothing has been found regarding those offshore companies. Forbes estimates him at around 20 million Euro, that’s nowhere even close to oligarch scale.
when the point of liberal democracies under late capitalism
…is to be not as bad as straight-up Kleptocracies. Russia is a mafia state. In Ukraine the state arrests you for corruption, in Russia you get arrested for reporting about corruption. The difference is that simple.
Any actual rebuttal or just gonna roll out the usual libshit jab and run along? America has blood on its hands for a lot of things, it found out once and might find out again if it isn’t careful.
I think 9/11 was a terrorist attack by a fundamentalist Islamic terrorist organization motivated by Bin Laden issuing fatāwā against America for stationing troops in Saudi Arabia and for supporting Israel. I think Bin Laden stating that he believed that it was a justified attack because of America’s support for Israel points pretty solidly at the motivation behind the attacks:
“…it was a response to injustice, aimed at forcing America to stop its support for Israel…”
Also this from his video where he admits that he was behind the attacks and says that he was motivated by Israel bombing Lebanon
“…it entered my mind that we should punish the oppressor in kind and that we should destroy towers in America in order that they taste some of what we tasted…”
Interested in why you think oil had anything to do with 9/11. The destabilizing countries for oil stuff mostly came after 9/11. Middle Eastern hatred for America was mainly fueled by our support for Israel, and partially because Saudi Arabia had American military bases. Oil was not an interest to these terrorist groups until after Iraq.
America was there for the oil, the destability came as a result and that came well before 9/11. Anyway, it’d be great if they’d stop meddling in everyone’s business for their own selfish reasons and that includes the endless NATO sabre rattling under the guise of fReEdOm.
Where? Israel? They don’t have any oil. We have had bases in Saudi Arabia since the 80s because they were one of the more stable Middle Eastern nations and because they were extremely anti-communist which made them good allies at the time. If you want to insist we were there for oil then we were there to make sure the Soviets didn’t get their oil. We expanded our presence there during the Gulf War because they have a border with Iraq and maintained that expanded presence until 9/11, at which point it expanded further to serve as a hub for Middle Eastern operations.
The Supreme Court is sabotaging the Trump indictments by delaying a decision. The goal is to delay trial so he can’t be convicted so close to the election. This court is just an extension of the party.
Oh bull. I’ve been collecting examples of the Court NOT acting conservatively, let alone acting partisan. I’m no fan of this Court, and I loathe Thomas, but they make some surprising calls. If they were an organ of the GOP, none of these cases would have passed, OR, they would have heard them to shoot down the lower court rulings.
There was an earlier ruling where they shot Trump down, but I can’t find it for all the noise over recent events.
I’m kinda OK with them putting off the call on the immunity case, it’s a weighty one, but I’m scared as hell they’ll take too long to ponder the arguments. Calling it now: They reject Trump’s claim. Just like they allowed him on the ballot, and the unanimity was telling, I think they understand the chaos that would ensue.
I don’t suppose you could explain how the 14th amendment works in the relevant case to give the contrary opinion to the unanimous court? I’m with the guy above, they suck and are awful, but not wrong on this one in particular. That you think the 9th amendment is somehow relevant is… telling.
edit: crickets. Crickets and downvotes. Nope, no hivemind punishing wrongthink here. Nosiree.
So, explaining how the 14th amendment works or how the 9th is relevant to his case is… beneath you. I’m painfully illogical for asking for an explanation. “the hivemind will downvote you for having a contrary opinion” is a lazy argument(?), despite direct incontrovertible evidence to support my claim.
I made no arguments, I asked a question and asserted a claim.
Thank you for deigning to reply, but I reject this as being of very poor quality, and mostly projection.
Shalafil posted a rebuttal 8 hours before this comment accusing them of not defending themselves, and this person posted a far more thorough debunking.
That you think “non-sequitur therefore your argument is invalid” is a compelling argument is depressing.
The overturning of Roe vs Wade, which was an almost 50 year old precedent, is an example of the supreme court acting in a partisan manner. Since the premise is that the current supreme court has never acted in a partisan manner, the counterexample refutes the premise. And if the premise of an argument is not true, then the argument doesn’t support the thesis. So, the guy you cited is also wrong.
Edit: Turns out the rebuttal you linked is a reply to a different, albeit identically worded post. And in this context, Shalafil didn’t use the term ‘never’ in their premise, meaning that in that context, a single counterexample actually isn’t enough to disprove the premise. So you’re right on this one. Sorta annoying that these two clash several times in this discussion.
I read your comment and it reminded me of something, but I just couldn’t put my finger on it. It took me a few minutes, then it dawned on me: it was my drunk Trumper uncle at Thanksgiving dinner. He was telling us how the “Mexicans and Blacks” are sabotaging “White Christianity™” by crossing the border and interbreeding with white women and that our telling him to shut up and go home was the real intolerance
Tl;dr: dumb people often blame everyone else for any consequences of their failure to recognize they’re dumb.
It’s called the Dunning-Kruger Effect, and yes it’s remarkable how often humans fall into this trap, isn’t it? In my experience, the appropriate response is to educate people when they are mistaken. Perhaps you could take the time to correct my mistake instead of ridiculing me?
Why do they need to put this off? Is there really a need to ponder over the question of ‘is a president allowed to break laws with impunity?’ Because it seems to me like there’s only one answer there and it’s “FUCK NO.”
It is fairly complicated. Should Obama be imprisoned for murder of US citizens in drone strikes? Should Bush be held liable for the incompetence in allowing 9/11? Should Clinton be held responsible for deaths in Kosovo for violation of the war powers act?
Presidents do seem to have immunity with regard to actions as a President. Creating a ruling that protects presidential action and allows criminal prosecution for other actions is going to be difficult. There’s also the matter of if actions done with immunity can be used as evidence against a president.
There is some existing precedent for distinguishing the President from the Candidate during elections. This could be used as a basis for a ruling Trump isn’t immune, but it’s hardly definitive.
It’s going to take more than an “I know it when I see it” ruling.
Except the question is not ‘is the president ever allowed to break the law,’ the question is ‘can the president break the law whenever he feels like it?’ The answer is obviously no.
All of these are asking if someone is guilty when the actual question is are we allowed to bring you to court to determine if you are guilty. A president should not have immunity and if a president feels they need to take extreme actions they should justify them before a court and accept the consequences of their actions. If someone does not want to be in that position to make such a call and pay such a price they have no business taking that role.
In most cases the guilt is largely proven, criminal liability would require a court to agree, but the findings from official reports are sufficient evidence. I’m not sure no immunity is a realistic outcome, a test for what actions are protected is most likely.
To me it seems that if something was agreed upon to be a law it should be enforced and if there are exceptions to the rule they should be written into the law itself. If something isn’t written into the law itself it should go to court where a determination can be made and if a jury finds there was good cause to commit such an action they can find them not guilty and a future exception can be added. By adding a blanket immunity it’s like adding cheat mode into the game and it’s going to be exploited in ways that we haven’t imagined yet.
They didn’t have to move at all, though. That’s the thing, they’re doing this voluntarily, just like with their ruling on Trump being on the ballots because they claim Congress has to hold a vote every time they want to enforce a law that has existed for 150 years. They chose to rule on that, they didn’t have to.
Most times, precedent is set by what the court decides NOT to review. When they say nothing, they are saying “the lower court has it right”. This is standard practice.
No they aren’t. They were asked to take this up a long time ago and didn’t. Then, when shit started looking bad for Trump, they suddenly reverse course and delay his trial.
You are correct. Mr. Smith’s team requested that the SCOTUS review this months ago. Long before it was brought to them by Trump’s team, as a way to expedite the process, and stop the “play out the clock” approach they take.
More BS. This Court is conservative, not partisan. They owe nothing to Trump or the GOP. LOL, I even posted two accounts of them voting, or ignoring, both of those parties.
And as to my references, got any arguments? Perhaps they should have taken the trans bathroom ruling and fought it? How about Washington’s tax deal? That could have been Earth shattering.
Hi, I’m a mathematician. My career is built on creating, evaluating, and identifying the problems with logical arguments.
Even if the person you’re replying to is wrong, their argument is at least cogent; it’s entirely possible that the Supreme Court rules against Trump, and there’s good reason to believe that they will.
Your comment (the one I am replying to) is a non-sequiter, and is therefore invalid.
Furthermore, even when applying the principal of charitable interpretation, the best argument you could plausibly make relies on a false inference. Specifically: you fail to take into account the fact that the justices were selected for their opinions on abortion, and so their ruling cannot be used to infir that they will always act in the best interests of the GOP.
Please don’t be such a doomer asshole; it’s unbecoming.
Who’s hiding? All of my comments are public, and you can tell because a whole shitload of people read my comments to downvote them because they disagree with me. Who’s talking smack? I have asked questions, made claims, and the overwhelming response has been active hostility to me, personally, and not to my position. Case-in-point:
You forgot, we also don’t like fucking cowards who hide and talk smack. Make sure to add it to your list so you can feel better than the rest of us.
Hey everyone look at the superior mind here.
Your comment is two things: Sarcastic, vitriolic, ad hominem (smack talk), and a total failure to address any of the claims I or others are making. I suspect because if you attempted to actually address the claim (instead of calling the person you disagree with coward and, by sarcastic implication, stupid), for instance, that “the hivemind will downvote you when they disagree with you here,” you realize you would fail utterly.
I’m sorry you feel the need to attack me with compliments, your fascination with the superiority of my mind(?) is very strange. I never said that I was smarter than you or anyone else here, and, in my opinion, this is suggestive of your own lack of confidence in your position or your ability to argue your position.
I’m reporting your comment for ad hominem attacks and bad faith argumentation. There, downvote that.
Supreme Court allows federal agents to cut razor wire Texas installed on US-Mexico border
Omg the Supreme Court honors the federal governments right to control the boarder. So controversial and certainly something that would never get flipped on its head.
Oh the SUPREME COURT didn’t want to talk about $500 mask fines???
From what I can see as of a couple hours ago, they’ve been bombing the south and refugee camps. So far they use this messaging as a way to corral and murder.
notice how i said a "probably’ whereas you stated a definite “are”? we dont know shit right now. the fog of war is a real thing. I would caution against fully believing anything you hear to either direction.
Look, we had the report, ok? It was complete and it was an amazing report, a perfect report, it was just so good. Some say it was the best report they ever saw. My lawyers said, Donald, how did you come up with this, are you a lawyer? Because it was just so perfect. If only they knew! I’m better than any lawyer! And then Obama, this guy… where was he even born? Who is this guy? He sends his vicious dogs after me, they almost got me, these thugs, these evil dogs… and they ate my report. He was so jealous of my report! Look, believe me, ok, I’ll rewrite the report. It will be even better. The best. Believe me.
If only the power companies had been repeatedly warned that this would happen, and given millions of dollars of taxpayer money to increase power generation potential.
Oh wait… They were warned of this? And they were given taxpayer money? And they illegally used it for stock buybacks instead? And nothing was ever done to prosecute the illegal spending? Yeah, that sounds about on par for Texas.
Whaat? But THAT would mean Republican lawmakers are pushing a dangerous and dishonest anti-government agenda that is, in fact, just a cover for greedy anti-consumerism! That can’t be true!!
Well, they did invest in it. After the mass failure in February 2021, they passed a bunch of new regulations, and within one year, the entire grid was pretty much up to the new regulations. IIRC, like 98% of the grid was up to the new regulations within a year after that freeze. There hasn’t been mass failure since then. There was a local failure this past winter in Austin due to the trees not being trimmed properly, then freezing rain caused branches to break and fall on power lines (called Arborgeddon by the locals). But there have been no state-wide failures since the new regulations have been put in place.
“We can’t do that,” President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador told reporters at a regular government press conference.
“It’s not up to us.”
You are a member state. You signed the Rome Accord. The fuck you can’t. It’s your responsibility and not doing so makes you complicit in destroying world peace further.
Founded in 2005 by web developer Steve Huffman and entrepreneur Alexis Ohanian, Reddit became best known for its niche discussion groups and its users voting “up” or “down” on the content posted by other members.
I appreciate this extremely sly shade at Steve Huffman.
He’s not an entreprenuer because he didn’t do dick between leaving Reddit and coming back to Reddit whereas Ohanian had a few other companies in his back pocket.
I mean, Ohanian sucks, too, but this sentence is just Reuters kicking dirt in Steve Huffman’s smarmy little bitch face and I’m fucking here for it.
I’ve tried to go back to Reddit occasionally and it’s garbage, vastly more garbage than I remember last year, from the web design down to the userbase. Whereas I can’t recall a single time I’ve been on lemmy and encountered an [undeclared] bot
There are a few bots, mostly spammers. If you mod a community, you can see them. They’re typically caught by the spam filters before I even notice they’re there.
Just today I noticed how low skilled the reddit base seems to be in my general meme/tech/piracy thrmed feed.
So many basic questions that could literally be answered by or get a start on from ChatGPT etc.
Instead they pollute the subs with their low effort requests for help or guidance.
I don’t want to bash those folks that want to liberate themselve but this is either a designed request to engage discussions (state a correct fact, nobody responds vs. state a purposefully wrong fact and everyone and their dogs will come to correct them) or they are literally unable to search google on how to pirate.
This is like being unable to look up porn by themselve searching “Woman tits naked”.
And Huffman’s programming skills weren’t even that great because they quickly brought in Aaron Schwartz to make it all work, yet they always conveniently leave him off of the founders’ list.
This is literally the story of almost every successful tech venture. Even in the company I work for, the CEO was a former salesperson while the dev who started it all was still a dev after 20 years. He singlehandedly created the entire product catalog but no one outside of the company knows his name. The CEO’s name is all over everything, including a “book” he “wrote”.
There’s always a low profile nerd somewhere in the background who is absolutely key to the whole operation but they rarely get cred.
Man I wish you were wrong but I have seen this exact thing 95% of the times I had a look behind closed doors of companies.
And even more dumb: this nerd usually gets undervalued, and as soon as they leave, it takes about half a year for ppl to realize how fucked they are and frantic recruitment noises to fill the offices in the hopes to pick up the pieces.
Huffman was fucking pissed about how good Alien Blue and Apollo were. He bought and absolutely fucking ruined AB and when he couldn’t buy Apollo (he tried) he crushed it under his boot heel.
After law school, candidates will spend 675 hours working under the supervision of an experienced attorney and create a portfolio of legal work that bar officials will grade as an alternative to the traditional bar exam.
So, still basically a test, but now more like 4 months of underpaid/free labor.
The bar I took cost something like $2000 including two months of prep classes on top of law school. Then more money for a hotel stay so I could take a two day test. I would have preferred 4 months apprenticeship paid or no.
I gave you my opinion, from my experience . If you’ve taken a bar and that’s your opinion, fine.
The primary barrier to entry into the legal profession is law school, not the licensing exam.
4 months of legal apprenticeship with a side gig isn’t bad. However, I would imagine that most applicants will be doing 4 months of paid clerkship with enough extra unpaid hours to meet the bar’s criteria.
A practicum is required for some professions, like professional engineering. The standard for engineering is four years with a bachelor’s degree and passing two tests. You can read engineering in a couple of states without going to college, but it takes 15 years experience and you still need to pass one of the tests.
If you’re referring to the FE and PE tests as being required. They are required to be able to get the extra cert, but not to be am engineer. Most engineers are not PEs, and you don’t have to pass the FE exam to be an engineer.
That’s still lower than what’s required to do hair/nails here in Oregon. My buddy had to drop $25k on some shitty for-profit school to become a barber.
Come to the UK where it’s now going to be two years of qualifying experience on top of exams in a highly competitive field working for minimum wage if you manage to work 40 hours and not more.
To get to that point that you actually start on the qualification can take a few years post law degree and nowhere near all law graduates get to that point.
reuters.com
Top