Only for people lower middle class, and below, and even there the US for example has higher cancer survival rates than say Western Europe.
US 2024 Presidential Election
- Thread starter gorfias
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I didn't offer that comparison, I responded to it. Let's review it actually:
The post I was responding to was suggesting Republicans had a double standard, and my response was that Musk doing that isn't ok, but the comparison to Hunter Biden isn't really reasonable. I didn't say anything close to a drug-addled Must being non-problematic, and actively addressed that it not being comparable is not a defense of Musk. And then you voluntarily offered the take that Elon Musk is more degenerate.
You don't mention double standards at all. The logical structure of your comment is very obviously creating a justification for why it's okay for Trump and co. to constantly hammer Hunter Biden whilst also appointing Musk. Thus later claiming that accepting criticism of Musk implicitly means you don't have double standards is as feeble as it gets. Plus more in the third paragraph.
Let's consider terms like "worthy of condemnation" and "pretty terrible role model". As criticism goes, those sorts of bland and vague comments are as hard-hitting as a damp sponge thrown by a child. Note the contrast with absolutely damning language "full-fledged degenerate" deployed against Hunter Biden. So whilst you are at some level accepting criticism of Musk, you're also very definitely blurring and minimising that criticism with language use and a negative comparison.
But more importantly, drug addicts taking high office was a major point of Hades's comment, thus whether Musk should have been appointed to "DOGE". This is also critical to the concept of double standards: Hunter Biden was not given power in government but Musk was. You just avoided the issue entirely and switched to the personal to give Musk a favourable comparison.
No, it isn't. The logic of my comment is exactly what it says on the face of it. You are choosing to infer whatever unstated argument you want to argue against.
If you want to talk about "on the face of it", the only argument you explicitly made in #4,846 is that Hunter Biden is a worse person than Elon Musk.
Firstly, that's a inadequate response because it just doesn't address issues raised by Hades.
Secondly, when I disputed that one, explicit argument you made, you used a completely tangential rationale to attack me.
Thirdly, given you have drawn implicit arguments from #4,864 yourself, it's just hypocrisy to criticise anyone else for doing the same.
Really? I've never had an insurance that didn't push hard for the generic if there is a generic version of the same drug. Actually, to go a step farther, by state law all pharmacists here are required to substitute the generic unless either the doctor specifically notes brand name only on the prescription or the patient demands it.
But sometimes there isn't a generic, and sometimes it's more complicated than that.
For example, I went on Lantus within 6 months of it hitting the market, and it was like night and day as far as my blood sugar goes. I was on Lantus until Basaglar and then Toujeo hit the market, at which point my insurance decided they were equivalent enough (they're all functionally similar very long acting insulins, but aren't biosimilar because that is shockingly difficult to achieve for this kind of drug) to only include one of the three in the formulary and only cover the others at all with special pre-approval.
None of these are a generic, because no biosimilar generic exists and it's very unlikely any biosimilar generic will exist in the foreseeable future. For most intents and purposes Basaglar is functionally generic Lantus and Toujeo is functionally concentrated generic Lantus, but not *exactly*, not closely enough for pharmacists to be required to substitute (because it is possible to have different reactions to them because of differences in the production pathway despite being essentially the same drug). By "concentrated", I mean that Toujeo is only distributed as U-300 while Lantus and Basaglar are only distributed as U-100, these U- numbers being a measure of units of insulin per mL. It being more concentrated can influence absorbtion, but also reduces the total fluid volume being injected (which honestly makes for more comfortable injections as dose increases).
The step further you mention isn't actually a step further, cause it's not the state, doctors, pharmacies, or patients causing the issues. I've got a little bit of inside knowledge, my dad is a pharmacist and I've spent a fair amount of time in my life working in the pharmacy or hearing about it from him. A significant amount of his work day is spent going back and forth between insurances and doctors to get people's prescriptions covered by insurance correctly, cause not all substitutions work like you subscribe. The pharmacy is also in a state where the law compels pharmacists to substitute generic equivalents unless explicitly marked "brand necessary" by the prescriber, but that only covers the case where its making things cheap and generic. One of the things that can cause a headache is when the doctor already specifies the cheaper option and the formulary from the insurance covers a more expensive alternative instead, the law doesn't equally let pharmacists substitute a more expensive brand for a generic, and it quickly turns into phone tag trying to get the insurance company to approve the cheap option or the doctor to update the prescription with the one the insurance is paying for.
The incentive for the insurance company to be stupid like that is likely some behind the scenes deal with a PBM or drug company to funnel them more of your money. Or if it's CVS/Caremark/Aetna, it's all one company deciding internally to funnel themselves more of your money. The practice hit the news with Adderall in particular some years back. I'm not saying this is a majority-of-the-time kinda thing, more often insurers do push towards generics cause it's usually better for their bottom line, but it does happen often enough to be a regular occurrence.
I have a green card. I dreamed last night that some ICE agents started following my brother and I in a kind of alley to meet their quotas. A fight started. They wore construction equipment for some reason.
Why would anyone still move here? Country of paranoia.
Why would anyone still move here? Country of paranoia.
Trump announces travel ban and restrictions on 19 countries set to go into effect Monday
President Donald Trump is again banning people from countries his administration deems dangerous from coming to America.
apnews.com
Because bad as it may be, most other parts of the world are worse.
And to be fair, if you have professional skills, the opportunity to earn a lot of money is fantastic.
I don't know, man. That might be true but the word "most" is doing a lot of work here. If I had to choose a country other than Germany to live in I reckon America would barely make the Top 50.
Leaked State Department Memo Reveals Profound Restructuring
Drop Site obtained the internal memo reshaping U.S. diplomacy. Even senior lawmakers say they never saw, nor heard of, it.
www.dropsitenews.com
so jealous of the last name Grim, the goth frolicing years would've had such a smoother head startLeaked State Department Memo Reveals Profound Restructuring
Drop Site obtained the internal memo reshaping U.S. diplomacy. Even senior lawmakers say they never saw, nor heard of, it.
Today, Washington, D.C. saw quite a large gathering of Democratic Party centrists at an event called WelcomeFest 2025, themed “For the People in the Middle.” Members of Congress and assorted high-dollar donors mingled with speakers like Matthew Yglesias to celebrate the new Abundance movement, kicked off by the eponymous book, and deride “the groups” allegedly responsible for depriving the people of said abundance.
I took a look at the ideas behind the Abundance movement in a story today that looks at it through the lens of a stalled housing-and-parkland project in Manhattan called Hudson Yards West. Give that a read here if you have a moment.
We’re also publishing a big scoop by journalist Nicolae Viorel Butler, who got his hands on a State Department memo outlining an extraordinary reorganization. Read on for details. We’re publishing this story in partnership with Migrant Insider, where Nicolae regularly writes.
—Ryan Grim
Organizational chart for the restructured State Department in a sensitive but unclassified memo obtained by Drop Site.
Story by Nicolae Viorel Butler
In early May, a sensitive State Department memo began circulating through select committees on Capitol Hill. Congressional Note 25-032 lays out a radical reorganization of the U.S. diplomatic corps that would eliminate many programs long associated with the U.S., including support for free speech, women's rights, and cultural exchange. But despite its sweeping scope—including the elimination of over 100 offices and thousands of jobs—Drop Site could only find a single member of Congress that had seen it.
The memo was first revealed, in a very limited way, when Politico and others reported on the Office of Reemigration. The memo was first revealed via The Wire, who focused largely on the development of the new Office of Reemigration. However, the 136 page memo was more broad, and extensive, than any four paragraph mention on immigration reform. It effectively rewrites what the State Department is—and who it serves—from the top-down. Much of the foreign aid—like USAID and Refugee Assistance—will be repurposed for immigration under the new Office of Reemigration.
Even Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), the ranking member of the House Appropriations Committee, which was supposed to have received the note given its major impact on the budget, had not seen it. Neither had senators including Kevin Cramer (R-ND), Ben Ray Luján (D-NM), and Chris Murphy (D-CT), who serves on both Foreign Relations and Appropriations. Jim Jordan (R-OH), the powerful Chair of the Judiciary Committee and a hardliner on immigration, told Drop Site he had no knowledge of the memo’s existence.
"I haven't seen it," Appropriations Chair Tom Cole (R-OK) told me during the 4:30 PM vote outside the House Chambers. "The committee may have it, but I haven't seen it personally," even though he’d need to review the memo before adjusting the State Department budget.
The only member to acknowledge it was Rep. Brian Mast (R-FL), who chairs the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Mast told Drop Site that he and Secretary of State Marco Rubio have “weekly phone calls about restructuring.” But even Mast offered qualified responses, suggesting many of the memo’s structural changes are difficult to interpret. “You're probably looking at a chart with bubbles on it, right?” he said, referencing the graphs that outline department changes. “There’s a lot of places you just simply don’t see because you don’t see the bubble for every single thing out there.”
The Department of State has not released the memo to the public, and it has not briefed Congress publicly on its implications. Requests for comment were ignored by six congressional committees that should have received it.
Instead, the memo is being implemented administratively, within the boundaries of existing State Department authority, by July 1.
The full memo, obtained by Drop Site, is available here:
State Department Restructuring MemoDownload
2.65MB ∙ PDF file
What the Memo Reveals
The 136-page reorganization memo outlines a vision of the State Department stripped of its traditional diplomatic, human rights, and cultural programs—and recast as a command-driven, security-first bureaucracy.
By July 1, the department plans to eliminate or consolidate:
Toward this end, new offices will be created to monitor emerging threats, enforce migration controls, and consolidate foreign aid oversight under political leadership.
“There is a true command and control of it in a way that there wasn’t,” Rep. Mast told Drop Site. “That command and control will take place under the political branches.”
Disappearing Diplomacy
Among the bureaus being terminated outright are:
Instead, new entities like the Bureau of Emerging Threats, Office of Remigration, and Office of Foreign Assistance Oversight will rise in their place—built around security, repatriation, and centralized data enforcement and reinforced cyber security.
The memo creates powerful “Under Secretaries,” including one post that now controls the Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, Counterterrorism, International Narcotics, and the newly formed Emerging Threats unit. USAID’s traditional independence is also gutted. Its functions are folded under a new Under Secretary for Foreign Assistance & Humanitarian Affairs.
From Civilian to Combatant Mindset
When Drop Site asked Rep. Mast whether this shift represents a militarization of the State Department, his answer was revealing.
“There’s still a Department of State and a Department of Defense,” he said. But then he added: “The State Department was doing a lot of things they shouldn’t have been doing… most of the items [in the rescissions package] were, trans this, trans that, lifestyle things, not life-saving things… political things, unwelcome in these areas.”
Instead, Mast argued, the changes represent a reset. “It’s a refocus to say, ‘What makes us the partner of choice?’” He invoked the perspective of Secretary Rubio, suggesting the restructured State Department will deliver aid only where “transactional” benefits exist—especially in competition with China.
But the stated intentions of the memo suggest this isn’t just an effort to streamline efficiencies and correct inefficiencies: it's a pivot away from diplomacy—and toward control.
Budget Shifts Reveal the Priorities
The memo includes budget transfers that require no new legislation. Key increases include:
Opaque and Unauthorized
When Drop Site asked Mast whether the memo was final, he said, “No, no, there's still changes being made.” But he added it would largely shape the coming State Department reauthorization, describing it as “what we’re eating, sleeping, and breathing on Foreign Affairs.”
Still, Mast acknowledged that the changes are hard even for insiders to track. “Maybe you saw this program under J Branch before… now it went under Global Health, or here, or there.”
This obfuscation appears intentional. Even seasoned reporters found the nonanswers from representatives unusual.
Whereas State Department offices once purported to promote cultural exchange, atrocity prevention, and civilian diplomacy, there now exists a more directly executed bureaucratic machine for surveillance, sanctions, and strategic messaging. Accountability has been restructured. Civilian oversight is blurred or eliminated. What was once soft power has taken on a harder command and control edge.
Texas Sheriffs Drafted as Deportation Agents
Senate Bill 8 mandates local law enforcement to join ICE’s 287(g) program, turning Texas sheriffs into federal immigration agents and raising fears of racial profiling and eroded trust.
migrantinsider.com
can't see anything going wrong here. just chuck norris shenans innit. though wonder why chuck wasn't picked for the head roles of hollywood along with stallone, seems like he's in same ballpark.unless he already dead. is he dead? don't tell me, i don't care and can't pretend to if he is - nowt personal, just never seen or known them beyond the memes
That is certainly an org chart. Some of these make sense, a few feel like they're things the intelligence services should be doing but maybe that's because the US State Department has always felt like its doing the job of both the Foreign and Commonwealth Office AND the Home Office so it just a massive functionary umbrella and loads of really esoteric shit in it.Leaked State Department Memo Reveals Profound Restructuring
Drop Site obtained the internal memo reshaping U.S. diplomacy. Even senior lawmakers say they never saw, nor heard of, it.
so jealous of the last name Grim, the goth frolicing years would've had such a smoother head start
You can control your own paranoia. There's only 2 countries that I can think of that I would think (with obviously rather decent ignorance) would be better than the US, that would be Sweden and Denmark, though weather-wise they probably be too cold for me. I've been pretty disappointed that I'm currently getting highs in only the 60s over the last few weeks. Even a place like Japan that I think would be interesting to live in, I feel like the work culture there is pretty toxic and that's in comparison to the US.
I feel like people totally don't realize how good of a time we are living in for humans historically. It's probably almost always true that at any point in time, it is the best time to be alive as things get better over time. However, if you look at how life was just like from the 50s to now, it's not just marginally better, it's significantly better. Then, of course, there's just stuff you take for granted like running water that is extremely new in human history. And, then the US is, perhaps, the most accepting society in the world, but when you just harp on racism, sexism, etc (get inundated with all the awful stuff that does happen from your social media feeds); it makes it seem like there's all this hate, but there really isn't. Not that it doesn't exist, but it exists less than it ever has.
If people are depressed now, what the fuck would they be if they lived like 1,000 years ago or even just 100 years ago?
Russell from Due Dissidence said it well: They want you dead. Huge number of jobs about to be replaced by AI, and they're not even talking about taxing the rich or single payer health care or universal basic income or any kind of social safety net. They want a small population that's easy to control, working the jobs that haven't been replaced by machines yet. They distract with immigrants and culture war stuff because they have no plan for the common man.
At least men 1000 years ago were able to provide. They had a purpose. Capitalism took that away too.
Its funny that the Republican went on an anti ''DEI'' campaign and bullied a lot of non white people out of their job out of an openly stated belief that brown people automatically have ''less merit'' and that them having a job means they inherently stole that job from a more deserving white person. They make this big claim about merit only to then appoint the least qualified people just for being white and loyal. The defense secretary is a drunk who can't stop inviting people to secret meetings, the ''negotiator'' send to Putin is not a diplomat but just Trump's golf buddy, and now Trump appointed a 22 year old gardener for a Homeland Security position.
And I know. As stated before its all about in group and out groups. Its not really a ''gotcha'' if Trump never intended to appoint people on the basis of their merit. However there are also true believers, and to keep them on board it might be tactical to at least pretend merit has a factor in appointments. I'm sure there are a lot of Republicans who might be bad people but at least aren't dummies, and at least have SOME credentials. Is maliciously showcasing your power to the outgroup by openly showing merit was never the cause for ''anti DEI'' really more important then keeping your sheeps on board?
Also this malicious behavior of knowingly appointing unqualified people also carries some risk. Putting a drunk in charge of the military means soldiers might die, and that the scapegoat for this is easily identified due to how he smells of alcohol. If you put a kid gardener in charge of anti terrorism then American civilians might die from terrorism because the one protecting them is an unqualified nepo baby. Trump even showed how this worked in action by swearing a plane crashed solely because the pilot was black.
Can you really spin to the moderate voters that American civilians were murdered because Trump wanted to put a kid gardener on a position everyone knew he wasn't qualified for? If mister drunk spills military secrets and soldiers die will the veterans stay loyal?
And I know. As stated before its all about in group and out groups. Its not really a ''gotcha'' if Trump never intended to appoint people on the basis of their merit. However there are also true believers, and to keep them on board it might be tactical to at least pretend merit has a factor in appointments. I'm sure there are a lot of Republicans who might be bad people but at least aren't dummies, and at least have SOME credentials. Is maliciously showcasing your power to the outgroup by openly showing merit was never the cause for ''anti DEI'' really more important then keeping your sheeps on board?
Also this malicious behavior of knowingly appointing unqualified people also carries some risk. Putting a drunk in charge of the military means soldiers might die, and that the scapegoat for this is easily identified due to how he smells of alcohol. If you put a kid gardener in charge of anti terrorism then American civilians might die from terrorism because the one protecting them is an unqualified nepo baby. Trump even showed how this worked in action by swearing a plane crashed solely because the pilot was black.
Can you really spin to the moderate voters that American civilians were murdered because Trump wanted to put a kid gardener on a position everyone knew he wasn't qualified for? If mister drunk spills military secrets and soldiers die will the veterans stay loyal?