She has already had a leading role in West Side Story and The Hunger Games: The Ballad of Songbirds & Snakes; why do you call her a DEI hire?
Funny events in anti-woke world
- Thread starter Agema
- Start date
Isn't DEI being hired BECAUSE of your skin rather than despite of it? Allegedly anyway.
I guess it just shows how hard the far right is to keep up with. Last I heard of Ramsey everyone seemed to like their character as the littlest Mormond, and now they're suddenly the far right hate target of the day.
Are they really even fans if they already hate the t v show in the second game to begin with for the dumbest of reasons? They sound more like fake fans or wannabe fans to me.
The last thing I would call you is a totally average US citizen
Trump says American kids might have fewer toys because of his China tariffs — and he's fine with that
President Trump on Wednesday dismissed concerns about bare store shelves as he spoke about his trade approach with China.
www.businessinsider.com
Pretty soon we'll be hearing "maybe your kids only get two meals a week instead of twenty, and that's fine".
What you are talking about at the top is also a problem, don't get me wrong. It's also not the same
Spoils is were you basically buy people out so they never disagree with your decision. In particular, no one can be seen as smarter than the leader. Thats why Trump attacks experts and anyone who disagrees with him. As stated, the US got rid of it over a hundred years ago. Some other examples is Saddam, Putin and Gaddifi. They call it the Oligarchy under Putin
You're example is like networking. There is a possibility of merit based hirings but it's not definite. I would agree that DEI has a similar problem. But merit under Spoils/Oligarchy is seen as a bad thing.
I think you picked the wrong president as your example. Obama definitely picked a lot of conservatives. He didn't picked reactionaries (those that would end up being called MAGA) or many left wing people
If your position was "prices won't go up for this TV", then why did you state it as "there won't be blanket tariffs"?
Because the claim you actually made about tariffs has completely fallen apart, but you seem to be trying to rebut that by reasserting some irrelevant waffle about a television price.
Trump Fumbles When Asked Why He Blamed Biden for Bad Economy
And yet Donald Trump took credit for the economy while Joe Biden was still in office.
newrepublic.com
What's Trump done to earn our trust?
It's not as simple as just "peace". The world is a complex place and can rarely be reduced to such simplicities. We could have had peace in WW2 by everyone surrendering to Germany and Japan the minute they started invading. Does anyone here think that would have been a satisfactory and ethical conclusion? A bad peace can be worse than no peace - and Trump often seems to be pursuing a bad peace.
And let me also point out that the best predictor of someone's behaviour is their past behaviour. What is Trump's track record on this sort of thing? The abortive North Korea negotiations? The trade war against China that sort of sputtered out? Handing Afghanistan to the Taliban? Scrapping a nuclear deal with Iran for no apparent positive outcome? Low-impact North American trade renegotiations, apparently so ineffectual he wanted to revisit them the minute his second term started? Trump has a history of grandiose claims, precipitous actions, and long-term poor outcomes. He comes across as a man who doesn't appreciate the difficulties of what he's attempting to do, and/or lacks the attention span to effectively follow through with long or obstacle-strewn projects.
In a way, this has the potential to be very recoverable and even work out well for Trump's popularity.
As long as there has been no permanent damage to the economic fundamentals in a slump, GDP tends to return to the long-term trend with a period of larger growth. So for instance if the overall trend of GDP growth is 2% per year and then one year it slips to 0% due to some temporary blip, there's a good chance it will catch up the deficit afterwards (e.g. two years of 3% growth).
So Trump might tip the economy into recession with ill-considered tariffs, but assuming he steadies the ship, the long-term impact may be trivial. And you can bet that if the catch-up in this scenario occurs, the boastful headlines will be pouring out from the White House and supporting press.
Sure, but i don't think that will be the case. Trump has permanently damaged the US economic position. All the rerouting of supply chains and trade volumes to avoid including the US won't just be reversed the moment he changes his mind. Nor will the lost trust in the Dollar recover unless something happens to all the other important currencies.
Not to mention, Trump is very likely to cause more damage in his aimlessly thrashings around before the previous damage is recovered from.
I think Trump has damaged confidence in the USA, but I don't necessarily think in ways that will have major ramifications for the USA in a relatively short timeframe.
I don't the shock is probably that much different from many other types of shock in the short term. Yes, there's disruption, but assuming stability and no more screwing around from the Trump administration, things just gently move back to life as (pretty much) normal.
I suspect that the most long term ramifications (e.g. long term changes in investment activity, relocating industries, reconsidering the dollar as reserve currency of choice) will take enough years-decades that they're outside the scope of recession-recovery in the next 3 years.
Yeah, that shits never happening. Trump has fucked up way too hard to turn things around. He too stupid, too egosticial, a dumb sociopath who thinks he's smart, and a constant liar.
President Trump's approval rating at 42% in new poll released on term's 100th day
A new NPR/PBS News/Marist poll released April 29 found 42% of respondents approved of President Donald Trump's job.
www.usatoday.com
Agreed.
Important Daily Show Clips
Last edited:
There are a couple problems with your analysis. Problem one is that you state things as though they are caused by Trump and not consider that the alternative may be equal or worse. You're blaming Trump for the Taliban having power in Afghanistan... what alternative are you comparing to? Is America policing Afghanistan in perpetuity? Is America slaughtering every member of the Taliban before even suggesting a withdrawal? Would you ever not criticize Trump for either of those things? What alternative are you comparing to. Problem two is that you acknowledge the difficulty of these issues and somehow consider it a mark against someone trying to solve them. Put these problems together, and you get the two parts of your post above.
We could all take the pressure off of Iran collectively if they agree to postpone their nuclear weapons development for 10-15 years, that's much more friendly and peaceful, right? That's what the nuclear deal was. Why does anyone here think that is a satisfactory and ethical conclusion? Trump pulling out is not pure upside, sure, but the alternative is capitulate to a hostile power that explicitly wants to be able to threaten the world with nukes. Sure, it's not an easy situation when there's a reasonably powerful nation trying to increase its military might with nuclear weapons and you have limited means to stop them, but that's not reason not to try, and it's certainly not reason to condemn someone who does try, and it's extra double not reason to pretend trying is the real problem and not the people actively pursuing nuclear proliferation.