I really don’t think so. Putin will not give the US such a big win in the Arctic. The point about nationalism is that you can be friends with another nationalist leader, but only up to a point when there is some perceived divergence of interest. Therefore you cannot have a long term alliance between them. Putin understands this well (even if Trump does not).
Also, huge scandal breaks out and you don’t check your personal records before giving a response?
We would indeed prefer shipping to Suez. That’s why we deploy navy ships to the Red Sea. Doesn’t mean that we asked for this particular strike on Jemen (which as many already pointed out is unlikely to affect piracy much). You can’t say you do something for Europe when to my knowledge no European nation asked for this “aide”.
Not particularly technically inclined so this question may be stupid, but suppose an intelligence service found some backdoor into Signal, wouldn’t they try to keep that information hidden from Signal? So in theory the chat could be vulnerable already?
European here: we did not ask for your help, we do not particularly want you to bomb the houthis (or anyone in the Middle East for that matter).
It either happens in the mid-terms or never. If progressives win big, you have a chance of changing DNC leadership.
Not sure how you envision this. It’s not a winning strategy to have a third party run for election. The best outcome by far is if AOC is the Democratic presidential candidate in 2028.
Fully agree. I hate these clickbait articles that for example say“Here is why Trump wants to annex Canada as the 51st state” to proceed explaining me about Canada’s strategic location and it’s mineral resources.
No Trump does not have a rational idea about why he wants to annex Canada, beyond “it looks nice on the map”, and all the mineral wealth in the world does not make up for the cost of antagonising your closest ally.
These ideas are all completely bonkers. You may have discovered a rational justification, but 1. Trump is not a rational actor, and 2. The justification is always insufficient to cover the damage it does to the US, and the world.
The order of business is to first remove taxes for people earning more than 1 million, before in a second step attempting to balance the budget. If (and only if) that second step succeeds will people under 150,000 see a tax cut. In other words that will never happen.
Yes indeed, but also primaries can help to attract voters. I think the Sanders campaigns, though he didn’t win, made young people more likely to vote Democrat.
Don’t forget his trans daughter. Pretty sure that she was a catalyst.
I mean, it’s just really hard to understand why all these billionaires have decided to become so politically active. 1.) they have more than enough money for 10 more generations at least. 2.) if there is a serious tax hike or other threat to their wealth they can always quietly buy off some key politicians. 3.) if you stick your neck out like Musk (and some other billionaire cabinet members do) you run the chance that people will want to cut it off. If I were a billionaire I would make it my lives mission to ensure that the general public does not know my name.
Matters at least a bit. For instance, Musk has signalled his interest in buying OpenAI. He will find it far harder to get the money for it now that Tesla shares have nosedived.
More generally with Tesla it is difficult to make a business case for the existence of the company right now, since Musk alienated his entire potential consumer base. I wouldn’t be surprised if the company gets sold into parts in the text two years or so.
Corporations and their owners thought that Trump would boost the stock market through tax cuts. Instead the market is tanking due to his moronic tariffs and Russia-appeasement strategy. Now that it’s clear he won’t be making them money they have rediscovered their “morals”.
While I agree, here’s what I worry about. Even if the leadership is replaced, the culture of the Democrats is to listen to consultants, voter panels etc. It’s commendable to take voters wishes into account, but what most voters want is a leader, not a listener.
Example: during the campaign voter panels talked about inflation and immigration whereas healthcare was ranked at the bottom. Therefore Democrats did not talk about healthcare.
But this is really a chicken and egg story. If nobody talks about healthcare, voters feel that healthcare is not on the ballot, and so they won’t mention the topic in voter panels. Luigi showed (once again) that healthcare in the US is fucked and that many people in fact care deeply about the topic. I am almost sure that Harris would have done better had she made healthcare the central issue of her campaign. The moral is that as long as Democrats are following, rather than leading, they will continue to lose elections.
That’s a fair point. To my understanding the science is not clear if transition started pre-puberty, though I think it is pretty clear if transition happened after puberty. You are also absolutely right that in practice the problem (if you consider it as such) concerns very few cases. I think my only point was that having an open (instead of a men’s) section would circumvent both the possible exclusion of transgender people, and the controversy of those born as men, participating in women’s competition.
Many sports are divided in a women’s and an open competition. In the open competition any genetic advantage goes (hence the name open), whereas the women’s competition is restricted to people with a specific trait. In such a context I think it’s totally valid to restrict the women’s competition to “born with vagina”. Transgender (both M->F and F->M) can continue to compete in the open section.
Sports that are instead divided in a men’s and women’s section are more problematic, because they may completely block transgender people from competing at all levels, which is very exclusionary. I don’t see a particularly good solution for these sports, apart from changing sections to “open” vs “women’s “.
Finally, I do not see a role for genetic testing (born with vagina, but XY for instance). People make life decisions based on the gender they believe they are. Takebacks based on genetic tests that could occur in far advanced stage of an athlete’s career is completely unfair.
Tbf driving old cars until the end of their lifetime is also an environmentally friendly choice, since there are quite large emissions associated with producing a car.
It’s also just missing the point entirely. The US is primarily responsible for ensuring that illegal substances do not cross its borders. The much, much more logical response by the US to this threat would be to increase searches of vehicles crossing the border. Obviously, we would still have to pretend that a drug as compact as fentanyl can in fact be stopped effectively, but in any case securing the border from the US’ side is not Canada’s responsibility.
I would hope she runs for president not senate.