As one of these employees, I’m very very pissed off. Then this article hits the day I get back from a nice vacation. Fuck it. My resume is already updated. Time to get out of here. I have less than zero respect for this guy. So much for nearly a decade at AWS.
Recently left there after 5+ years. Best decision I ever made. I knew I was burnt out and unhappy there, but I didn’t realize how burnt out and unhappy I was until they were in my rear-view mirror.
That said, the experience I gained at AWS definitely made me a valuable employee in my current job.
It’s weird to me the level of deranged guilt her diary entries show.
We are responsible for our actions. I just wonder wtf was going on in her head that allowed her to keep doing it. She hated herself for it. Like a lot.
Yes, but it’s difficult to access. You need to want to get the care and actively campaign to be referred.
And that’s the “easy” things like anxiety or garden variety depression.
As soon as it gets complicated it’s a whole other story.
If she never tried to seek it out, then it doesn’t even matter as it appears she didn’t give off any “I murder babies” vibes to the extent that the investigation was delayed beyond a reasonable length of time because she was not suspected of such a thing.
It’s so hard, because those families have it so amazingly awful but I can’t imagine her being a sane person and doing what she did. She shouldn’t be on the street and she needed help a long time ago.
I agree that it depends on the jurisdiction, but manslaughter is usually unintentionally killing someone. Killing someone intentionally without having planned it is usually still murder.
Not to mention, if she was diagnosed with something severe, she would probably lose her job if not her entire career. A lot of people avoid seeking help for that reason.
Ok, but the alternative is knowing a nurse directly in charge of infants wants to murder them and still letting her go into work. You’re basically an accomplice at that point.
Real talk though, you can’t punish thought crimes.
Who TF dreams of crashing planes that does not fly planes? The incidence of plane-crash-dreamers is most certainly highly concentrated amongst pilots.
As are those who dream of killing babies concentrated around those who spend time around them.
Most of us use our brains to filter out things that we don’t want to come to actualization. But the bad thoughts are in there. 94% of us will experience intrusive thoughts at some point in our lives. All to jail?
And yet you think people should have their guns taken away for their thoughts or their words, so what makes you think you’re any better?
But the bad thoughts are in there. 94% of us will experience intrusive thoughts at some point in our lives. All to jail?
Imagine treating intrusive thoughts and killing babies as somehow equivalent. And that psychologists aren’t trained to know the difference and who to flag, and who not to. At least that’s what you’d say when pushing for red flag laws.
Or like get it solved before it becomes a problem? And have a professional medical opinion reccomend if you should work somewhere to not based on a risk assessment, not just a blanket statement
Every mental health professional I have seen over the years is a mandatory reporter (in the US). Meaning they stated to me, upfront… if you have thoughts of hurting others OR yourself that WILL be reported. I didn’t have those thoughts so I probably put that out of my mind rather quickly.
But after reading these comments, and the articles I can see both sides of the argument. Those suffering from these thoughts may well feel scared to admit them knowing they would have consequences for their jobs/ or legal trouble from admitting them. I’ve no idea who they would be “reporting” it to. I assume the mental health worker would attempt to send the individual to a psychiatric hospital so they can get help .
Right, but she was compulsively murdering babies in the hospital. Can we all agree that she shouldn’t have had a job as a nurse in a NICU? That doesn’t feel like a statement with room for debate.
But… The comment is about why the murderer perhaps didn’t seek mental health. Because she didn’t want to lose her job. Who is saying that this was a good job for her to have?!
The other dumb fucks pushing the issue for whatever reason. I’m trying to figure out why it’s so important for them for everyone else to submit to their opinion that the murderer was mentally ill. What difference would it even make? She’d be a threat to the community regardless and so her imprisonment or execution would be justified whether she was mentally ill or not, so what’s the deal, I wonder?
The point is that if she had had help before she started killing babies, we wouldn’t even be here.
But she didn’t. We may never know why in her case, but in other cases, fear of losing your job and having no way to afford food, housing, or other needs is one reason.
Because people always look for answers. The other explanation would be “some people are just evil” which is irrational, unscientific, sounds like religious bs and gives no room for change.
There are any number of explanations that could apply. You’re presenting a false dichotomy between “mental illness” and “some people are just evil” because you’re looking to silence opinions you do not agree with, and you don’t have a right to do that. What if there’s a different reason? What if she was blackmailed or brainwashed? What if it was part of her religion? What if someone paid her off to do it? Your mind jumped immediately to mental illness, a mindset that stigmatizes the mentally ill. You cannot call yourself good or just when you do that.
The truth is that some people really are just evil and they do stuff like this because they’re sadistic, or entitled, or because they think they can do what they want with impunity. You being unable to accept that fact doesn’t make it not true, and that answer not sounding pleasant to you doesn’t make it false either. No one’s obligated to give a baby murderer room for change; they’re allowed to put the well-being of children and the community above hers.
It sounds like you’re just mad because other people are rightfully mad at her and want to see her punished, and you can’t see what’s wrong with that. You legitimately don’t understand that it’s not right to morally condemn others for wanting to excise someone like her from the community – an act hardwired in most social animals to protect their safety and the safety of the group, including humans. Maybe the one who’s mentally ill here isn’t her, it’s you.
For someone demanding tolerance you are awfully intolerant towards differing opinions.
Being sadistic, entititled, or thinking you are above everyone else can all be the result of someone’s mental illness.
I do not believe in good and evil, not a religious person. While the transition is gradual, we normally understand a physical and psychological alteration as an “illness” when it causes the affected person pain / discomfort / limitation or when it makes living in current society close to impossible.
Wanting to kill babies certainly fits that definition. Whether she was actually brainwashed or mindcontrolled by aliens, we do not know. But additional possibilities don’t rule out mental illness as an option.
I also didn’t meant to give the option to change to the murderer, but that there is the possibility for humans to get rid of murderers, for example, when we find a way to cure all kinds of extreme mental illnesses.
Haha, I was right. You’re mad. Big mad. Well, I’m mad too. From your sniveling backtracking to your refusal to question your own motives or thoughts, it’s obvious you’re defending and sympathizing with a baby murderer because her existence challenges your worldview and beliefs. You’re immature, ignorant, arrogant, and bigoted. You are manipulative, and you are cruel.
Being sadistic, entititled, or thinking you are above everyone else can all be the result of someone’s mental illness.
But they’re not, and you don’t have the authority to assert they are. Those are the qualities of an evil person or just an asshole. You are a perfect example of this.
While the transition is gradual, we normally understand a physical and psychological alteration as an “illness” when it causes the affected person pain / discomfort / limitation or when it makes living in current society close to impossible.
but additional possibilities don’t rule out mental illness as an option.
Repeat after me, dipshit: You do not have the authority or the qualifications to label other people mentally ill.
You do not have the evidence, training or education required to label her mentally ill. You’ve never even spoken to her or met her. You do not know jack shit about her mindset. So you’re not going to label her mentally ill.
You’re not going to claim she’s mentally ill.
You’re not even going to imply she’s mentally ill.
You’re not going to do anything but shut your mouth and learn to stop being an ableist prick.
Understand?
I do not believe in good and evil, not a religious person.
Good and evil aren’t religious labels, they’re moral ones. Atheists believe good and evil exist because they’re labels we apply to behavior that recognize the agency and responsibility other people have for their actions, and those labels acknowledge the obvious fact they need to be held accountable and punished for them.
I also didn’t meant to give the option to change to the murderer,
So a baby murderer should have been allowed to keep her job and continue to put innocent lives in danger because you 1) baselessly think she’s mentally ill, and 2) think that a condition as extreme as you’re implying shouldn’t be regarded with consequence.
Isn’t there protections for that though? That may fall under some medical status protection. Also when diagnosed you also get medicine which may help your brain balance.
You may have had a different experience than I had, but in my local authority area, access beyond your GP is very difficult. The list is so long they try to avoid referrals, and if you’re unwell the ability to advocate for yourself is diminished.
Some would rather chuck a Prozac at you and hope that’ll fix it.
It’s interesting to me just how rare the underlying mental disorder has to be. Millions of people have mental health issues too but aren’t committing unspeakably vile acts. The incidence rate has to be 1 in several hundred million births.
My other thought is that mental health played a role but isn’t the underlying cause, since mental health problems generally don’t drive people to do this. That said, with the complexities of genetics and epigenetics, it’s perfectly possible it could happen.
That’s because the mental health excuse is just that: an excuse. They don’t actually have the evidence to back up the notion that she’s mentally ill other than her diary entries. Those entries could have been forged for all they know.
They not only undermine the very real damage that woman caused by using mental health as a cynical attempt to try to give her an out, they also are being extremely ableist. Committing egregious crimes != mental illness and for them to draw that equivalency caters to the stereotype that mentally ill people are dangerous.
These are people who know that and who would call others out for being ableist, yet do so freely in threads like this without consequence or a second’s thought from anyone else. Ask yourself why that is.
Aye. Not to mention, there’s a very distinct possibility that the diary entries are true, but are a result of the evil acts. I think it’s possible for someone to fall into depression and suicidal ideation after commiting truly heinous acts. We don’t have any indication what the causation is here.
It’s foolish to think that everyone who does evil just twirls a mustache and thrives on it. I’m guessing that most people who do something like this end up with mental illness or more severe mental illness as a result. It’s far more likely to me that these people are tortured and guilt ridden, evil souls than unrepentantly evil.
Anyhow – The first time I really had my eyes opened to how offensive this sort of language is was actually from David Harbour. As someone with mental illness, it really resonated when he pointed out that labeling mass shooters as simply mentally ill was a disservice to the millions of people who struggle with depression and anxiety and etc and it was incredibly stigmatizing. I’ve tried to be cognizant of that ever since, and the language around this story set off alarm bells for me.
That’s the sort of evil I understand and can cope with. There is something wrong with her we don’t have the capacity to understand. Some chemical imbalance or growth pushing on her brain in a certain area.
It’s the people with nothing wrong with them but allow evil to happen like the hospital administrators that gets me.
Sadly, we don’t understand the brain yet. Otherwise perhaps certain things could be visible. I know that there is some research how activity patterns in brains of “psychopaths” difffer from other people. But it is all still on shaky grounds.
You’d have to look at what she got out of it emotionally. Other hospital killers did it for a combination of “They were a burden”, “I was putting them out of their misery” and a sense of godlike power of life and death. Some started doing it for seeming mercy reasons but got so comfortable with doing it that they started killing patients because they annoyed them.
She got something out of it though. No one was forcing her to do it so regardless of her entries at the moment of choice she wanted to do it. She may have felt regret or self-hate after the fact but it is clear that those feelings eventually passed.
Regret or self-hate can just as well turn into driving factors to continue doing harm to others. When you are mentally ill, logic starts completely bending and finally making a 180 degrees turn from normal
I don’t think it’s possible to really understand a person that is that level of abnormal. Or rather, when you have empathy in a somewhat normal range, I think it’s really hard to understand how not having empathy works.
The reality is that terrorists like this guy are armed and carrying all the time, but the second amendment is for all Americans including liberals, lefties, moderates and everyone in between.
Im not advocating for violence, in fact having a concealed carry permit nearly always means the exact opposite. Someone being aggressive? You walk away and let them win. Someone tailgating you? Let them pass.
Carrying is about situations like this, between a shop owner with a rainbow flag and someone out looking for an excuse to murder someone over rage bait.
You likely don’t hear much about it because liberal gun owners don’t fetishize guns or base their personality around them like the chuds on the other side of the fence do. Guns are tools, not an identity.
the problem I have with this is that you’re basically saying more people should have guns. a significant part of the issue is that there already are too many guns around and accessible and that is statistically going to result in more alterations resulting in shooting. you can talk about how much respect guns should be given all you want. but if more people have guns then there will be more gun violence.
It’s a balance between individual rights and societal safety. You have a right to defend yourself from threats to your life and safety by using deadly force. To say otherwise removes the ability for a good chunk of the population to adequately defend themselves. I’m related to plenty of people who cannot defend their life against the average male aggressor without a gun, and you are too. At a certain point size and strength are insurmountable.
But yes, encouraging people to responsibility engage with firearms for self defense use means that there will be more guns floating around, which means more accidents, suicides, and murders. Just as with any other choice for the rules of society, it’s a trade-off. How much do we value keeping the right to adequate self-defense as a universal right? How much do we value preventing accidental injury and death?
The classic comparison is cars, simply because the annual death numbers are similar, and pretty much no other reason. But even so, we can draw parallels. Cars have mandatory features that reduce the likelihood of injury without impacting the usefulness or general experience of using a car. So too do guns, with nearly all guns having to meet industry requirements for safety, like being able to handle an overpressure event, and being drop-safe.
Cars have a licensing procedure (though it’s essentially a joke here in the US) and a licensing procedure would be fine for guns, so long as it can’t be used to restrict access (racist approvals and denials would become a problem in a hurry). My ideal licensing program would be a free handling skills course where failure would require some sort gross negligence, and even then you’d still get racist denials.
And really, this is the fundamental problem with guns: I (and many others) view them as a necessary tool to accessing a highly valuable right. The chances you’ll need a gun are very low, but the cost of not having it can be very high. You don’t have full control over whether someone else will attempt to take your life, and I don’t want to say to a large chunk of the population “we’re going to take away your ability to defend yourself in order to save other people who would still have that option either way.”
And I want to be clear, I completely agree with the other person. If you’re going to bring guns into your life, you had better learn medical skills, social skills, and you had better train with your firearm in somewhat realistic conditions. You should carry pepper spray, you should practice learning how to actually effectively calm people down, you need to learn how to safely store your guns and ammo, etc. Etc.
I get the desire ban guns in order to save lives, but you’d also be endangering others. Compare that with the car analogy, and banning cars would have a similar trade-off. Some people would live thanks to not getting in a car accident, others would die thanks to not having the same level of mobility (which has about a billion knock-on effects for quality of life).
I think your argument sounds good until you look at other countries. I don’t know for sure but I’m guessing there aren’t more violent attacks on vulnerable people in countries that have gun bans. I think it’s possible you’re exaggerating the fear of attack without factoring in the overall safety benefits of removing so much gun violence. I’m convinced that if it could be done the benefits would fast out weigh the draw backs.
obviously the reality is that actually accomplishing this task in a country whose identity is so pathetically attached to guns is the impossible task. there’s already just too many gun nuts so that ship had long sailed.
regardless, to me there’s no question whether it would be better or worse for there to be more people with guns.
Oh, no, it’s just that I don’t weigh all violence as equal. I have a different value system then you do when it comes to interpersonal violence and that’s okay that we disagree there.
To me, removing a potential victim’s ability to protect themselves isn’t worth removing a potential victim from being attacked at all. To me, they’re not a 1:1 trade. You probably disagree, and that’s okay, but I place a high value on an individual’s agency, to the point where I’m willing to let them live in a slightly more dangerous society to get it.
This trade-off exists in all areas of life, and I don’t necessarily side with personal freedom in all of them (I would ban cars if I could), but I do in this area.
so selfishness then. got it. your desires for yourself are more important than what’s better for everyone. you can’t pretend this is your choice for others. it’s definitely for yourself.
Uh, no, it’s so that everyone has the ability to make the choice for themselves. We could force everyone to live in padded cells for their own safety, but we both agree that’s ridiculous. We’re just arguing over what is and is not an acceptable trade-off between safety and agency.
in this case there’s only really 2 options: better for society or better for yourself. you can’t argue it’s better for everyone to have the choice to own killing weapons when it’s clear that position results in more gun violence and death.
You’re not wrong and I mainly don’t disagree with you.
But look at it from another perspective.
Those millions of guns in households are largely in the hands of conservatives since gun ownership skews heavily towards white people, males, and those living in rural areas which we already know also skews conservative, within which is a subset that fantasize about having a reason to murder their neighbors over dumb shit like colorful flags or opinions.
Liberals are much more diverse of a population than conservatives which means that when it comes to liberals, women or poc the odds of them having a fighting chance are not great in a life or death situation they didnt create, vs who is most likely to be the aggressors, conservative white men.
My take on it is that the cat is already out of the bag. In a perfect world I would prefer not having easy to operate life-ending tools spread freely throughout the country, but that’s not the reality we live in. The best shot we have is to even the playing field so to speak even with the downsides it presents. The current status quo is letting terrorists gun us down with impunity and that doesn’t sit well with me.
I mean… I kind of get where you’re coming from but “with impunity”? The shooter is now dead. If they weren’t dead they’d be either executed eventually or in prison for 50+ years, or more likely, life.
The trouble with this is that like @Liz pointed out in her comment about individual rights vs societal safety, from the perspective of the individual being shot, it is with impunity.
That woman had a right to life and safety and some stupid asshole came along and ended that no matter what justice the shooter rightfully faces after the fact.
I’m open to a solution, but it’s unrealistic to expect Americans to give/sell back enough of their guns for it to work like it did in Australia.
We have A LOT more guns here, and each one lasts 100 years or more. We could give up 99% of them (we wouldn’t though) and there would still be like 6 million guns here.
Demanding people give up their guns would just cause an open civil war. The solution that worked in other countries wouldn’t work here because the ideology is different.
I have no faith that what has worked in europe would work here given the political and cultural landscape before us. If it was feasible for america I’m not sure we would be in this situation now.
I wish it was, you and me both, but until that changes I’m simply accepting the lay of the land for what it is and reacting accordingly. We can work towards a better solution in the meantime; these actions and thoughts are not mutually exclusive.
However, your argument was very well written, and I appreciate both its intention and its focus on the human.
Thanks for the kind words. It is rather annoying being the change I want to see in the world though.
Carrying doesn’t do crap for self defense. The moment a crazy asshole pulls their gun at you and shoots you won’t even be able to comprehend the situation quick enough and get your own piece out of the holster.
The crazy asshole always wins as they shoot first (they are usually cowards on top, so you might just get shot in the back).
More guns just leads to more crazy assholes with guns, I feel much safer in European countries.
In the situation you outline, yeah you’d have no real chance at protecting yourself. And those situations do happen in cases like the Las Vegas hotel shooting or any of the various school shootings we’re seeing all over these days.
In many other cases even the most craven assholes need to work themselves up to shoot another human being.
That means arguments, harassment and threats.
These are helpful advance warning signs that tell you that you’re entering dangerous waters and de-escalation tactics take priority. Many of our lady friends can already tell from a mile away if someone is dangerous even before they start flapping their mouthholes as a matter of everyday survival.
If all of that fails and I hope to god that it doesn’t, that’s when having a concealed weapon gives you a fighting chance at defending your right to live. Especially for women, guns are the great equalizer.
More guns just leads to more crazy assholes with guns
You’re right, this is true.
Unfortunately the cost of encountering a rather persistent strapped terrorist is extremely high even if the chance of it happening to you is low.
Well, I rather live in a country where pretty much no one is strapped (except police and military and even then not all of them).
Even the whole hero fantasy a lot of Americans have, it doesn’t work out. There is a famous video of someone shooting up a mall. A random guy carrying tried to sneak up on him. Then the girlfriend of the shooter popped him right in the head from behind (as he didn’t notice her following at a distance).
It’s not about self defense in this case, I think. It’s about sending a message that they/we/the lefties ain’t gonna take it laying down. If you truly want to see the right shit themselves, start arming lefties.
Good for him. And good for lots of other people, probably. But we all kind of figured, right? That man flirts with everyone, with impressive sincerity.
My job is 100% remote because I won’t accept anything else. I always ask recruiters if 100% flexibility will be written into my contract. If it won’t I withdraw my name from consideration.
I don’t mean to be contrary, but is it fair to call programming niche when there are degree programs and tech programs (bootcamps) that are widely available? Plus, in some cases, you don’t need a degree or certificates, just a portfolio.
Boot camps and training programs are popular, but the bar to professionally practicing programming is artificially high and it will remain a nich so long as that bar remains artificially high.
… I mean… I went to a four year university and got a Batchelors. Now I work as a software engineer. How’s that different from any other career path involving a 4 year degree?
If the skills aren’t niche and many people have it, it is easier for an employer to stipulate office work and ignore a candidate demanding remote work.
Twitter is dead. Calling it X will drive that home.
Also, Twitter has amazing brand equity. Much of Twitter’s value was the brand. If this idiot is dumb enough to throw that away, I’ll gladly help him burn money.
Miracle drugs are almost exclusively funded, or heavily subsidized, by the public sector. Typically through NIH grants, or other public funding mechanisms through the University system.
R&D budgets for a big pharma go to things like reformulating existing brand name drugs, to prevent them going generic as they are supposed to under current law. Or other high return, reduced effort, drugs i.e. new dick pills, narcotics, etc.
Executive pay and bonuses are not going anywhere, no matter what happens with these drug prices. They will cut their company to the bone, and then collude with private equity to take them private and gut it, before they ever considered cutting down their bonuses or stock options.
I benefit from an orphan drug, and the R&D was most definitely subsidised by the public purse.
My insurance pays a few grand a month for it.
The mfg coupon covers most of the rest, minus a copay.
This is the second iteration of the original drug. The first hasn’t meaningfully fallen in price and only the original company can manufacture and distribute the generic even under the name of competitors.
There was no breakthrough in the second iteration, and the logic to solve the “problem” they solved was straightforward. So now I pay more, for an anecdotally less effective version that addresses a risk irrelevant to me but present in the original.
There is yet a third iteration on the way.
Shock revelations:
pharma companies are greedy and will double dip against both government subsidies and patients/insurance at every opportunity.
XX Pharma didn’t pay for the original R&D, my gov did.
if one replaces Na with a/several similar elements, one still ends up with a salt, often resulting in a drug variant that “doesn’t affect blood pressure” and offers no other real benefits, nor risks.
Clinical trials for said alternative salt are broadly leas expensive than for the original. That does not result in lower prices.
Nationalise pharma research, if not the manufacturers.
Also, generics are often manufactured in countries with, shall we say, fewer controls and regulations. Know who makes those pills and where. If you can’t stomach the FDA reports on that manufacturer, find a pharmacy who will sell you something else…
The probably did at the time. There must be something in the water, or after effects of leaded gasoline, or something.
I am from norway so I only see this slow train wreck from the sidelines, but how the heck else can that wierd clown DT have a cult of personality. It boggles the mind.
Add in a dose of fear, and baby you got a stew goin’
Turns out 9/11 REALLY broke a lot of people’s brains. Bin Laden would be loving this shit, because it was probably the most effective attack on a nation-state ever.
Yeah, 9/11 was such a sea change in how people reacted to the world. It didn’t help that it coincided with the extraordinarily fast explosion of the internet. I knew people who went from just normal people to wishing to turn the Middle East into a glass parking lot. 9/11 was like a light switch that turned people into hate machines, and it happened in 2001 when normal people were going from dial-up to always-on DSL and cable internet so the amplification power of the internet and forwarded emails just turned that hate to 11.
This kind of right wing populism has sadly arrived here in Europe as well. Here in Germany we have the AFD which basically does the same thing.
My mother, her boyfriend and my brother have sadly also fallen into the right wing disinformation trap, it really sucks, its like a thought virus.
At least I still have my other half of the family whith which I can still have some political discussions where everyone enjoys doing it and its more about smaller details and how to turn the theory into practice.
This is the thing that gets me the most… I’m like this because of you. Thanks, I guess?
Maybe they should have been sitting right next to me and paying attention to every episode of Mr. Rogers’ Neighborhood, and Sesame Street like I did. Seems like they could have learned a lot.
Or I dunno, maybe I got lucky by not having a rapey children’s (and later, youth) pastor who actually taught valuable lessons while the adults were being radicalized in the main sanctuary (ew, as someone who hasn’t stepped into a church for anything besides weddings and funerals for 20 years or so, just typing that word feels gross).
Still a bit wild when you think about it: she comes from a religion that’s against it, a country that’s both against it and has it illegal, and she has no desire to change gender. Yet they all are saying she is.
If we infiltrate their online spaces to start talking about how “I’m transvestigating myself in case I am secretly trans!!!”, I’m sure some of these deluded idiots will start copying. It’s all an echo-chamber of fads.
I think those who still insists Imane is a man are doubling down because they can’t admit that they were wrong. Their ego is wounded. I saw some claims that, apparently, the Algerian government wilfully overlooked or changed Imane’s gender. As if that would ever happen for reasons you mentioned.
The headline is a bit misleading. Trump agreed to the ABC debate if Harris agrees to the Fox debate.
This is just a ploy for him to either get Harris to show up on Fox, or if she doesn’t debate him on Fox, spin it in such a way that Harris is somehow not wanting to debate him (Even though she never agreed to a Fox debate)
The narrative is already being set that he agreed to the ABC debate. So, regardless of conditions, what will be remembered is that he said he would be there, and then wasn’t. I don’t think there’s a way he could safely back out of ABC at this point, regardless of what Kamala does.
You say that as if people on either side expect him to be consistent and rational. His supporters don’t care what he does as long as it upsets Democrats and Democrats already know he’s a liar.
No, he formally accepted the ABC debate on September 10. He invited Harris to a Fox News debate on September 4 and an NBC debate on September 25. Harris declined the Fox News debate and has neither accepted nor declined the NBC debate.
He 100% intends to do the Fox debate then weasel out before facing her in a real debate, which is why he is making the ABC debate conditional on doing Fox first.
And he wants the Fox debate to be first. He FULLY intends to back out after they give him the special treatment, which is why Harris won’t do Fox first.
I am always wary of people like him and, over time, I found out that my instinct was once again correct.
This is why you cannot rely on philanthropy to make the world a better place. Also, this guy who is supposedly trying to improve the world is partnering with Samsung according to the article.
I’m still baffled by how ‘deregulation’ isn’t an extremely alarming word, not just in the current year or era, but overall.
Not to mention that in the current context only rich people want deregulation & it’s clear why (to pollute more, hurt workers through wages and work conditions more, pay less taxes, and to be able to deal with competitors as they wish with monopoly being the actively pursued goal).
The chances of over-regulation hurting the people are really small.
Over- or under- regulation isn’t the same as good or bad regulation. You can have good and bad regulations both in the sense of standards and methodology, as well as in the sense of bad implementation.
Fuck consumers workers and the environment, more PROFITS baby!!
For some reason Republicans can’t see that regulations tend to happen when companies fail to act responsibly in favor of profits.
Deregulation of financial markets caused the financial crisis, because the markets exploited it for new “tricks”, that were irresponsible.
Deregulation of consumer protections clearly harm consumers, and the same with environment.
There are also standards regulations that stimulate competition, and greatly increase industry efficiency.
Those morons hate regulations, but refuse to by foreign stuff because it “isn’t as safe and well made as American made”…you know, where we have tons of regulations…
Not just that, they is an underlying racist bias to that. That Asian made products from overseas are cheap because they care less or have less pride in their work than American made. They think that we as Americans for some reason have a greater baseline pride that permeates through everything made here.
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.