Bzdalderon

Putting boots on the ground will cause WW3. But if thats the cost of freedom and stability, then it's a price we need to be willing to pay.

The amount of incidents I've logged at work and home where messages talking about specific things I've never said aloud or mentioned elsewhere that have resulted in ads is insane. There's no way they don't, unless they read your messages before they encrypt them.

I use Nginx and let's encrypt. Works super easily and auto updates.

What if you can shoot your load, and communicate that you're carrying?

Genuinely surprised and relived by the amount of common sense in this comment thread, that's all I have to say

This is also called a buy phase

Buy low, sell high

Trumps policies are expected to pass costs on to consumers but have the benefit of maintaining production and development internally which should long term keep more money inside the USA, hardening supply lines against foreign influence. Given that China is openly campaigning for war on Taiwan by 2027 latest, and they're responsible for close to 80% of critical imports to US minerals, this puts the US in a predicament which Trump (probably not on purpose tbh, I won't give him the credit) is preparing for.

Tariffs on raw metals and minerals have proven effective since his first term with significant improvements in domestic refinement.

-"Tardif pass-through and implications for domestic markets: Evidence from US steel imports" Ahmad et al. (2023).

This isn't shared by other aspects of the supply network though like finished products or more complicated manufacturing because market instability halts investment in those areas, so no development actually increases in the US and prices just increase. This is a fatal flaw in the tariff calculus that is hurting trade and the economy. Manufacturing takes years to develop and adapt, and no one will leap on that kind of investment without clear assurances.

The science doesn't matter anyway, if it did, and this wasn't just about money and politics, countries like Canada wouldn't be charging a carbon tax, driving up prices for Canadians making them more poor which science says makes them worse polluters. Instead we would be shipping natural gas to India and China to phase out their coal consumption. We'd be using pipelines to cut carbons emissions from transportation vehicles. We would be using tax dollars to install solar on people's homes for them, reducing infrastructure maintenance and upgrade requirements for line and roads.

It's not about the science. It never was. That's why we are all doomed.

It's more of a figure of speech. But science would prove time and time again that too much of most things is bad.

Perhaps both are correct. Too much of anything is in fact a bad thing.

There's no black and white right or wrong. Both have solid lessons to pull away and both should be monitored for. To pretend we aren't currently in both an Orwellian nightmare, and Huxlian State, would be naive. We see what we are allowed to see, speak our new speak with passion and fire, while simultaneously getting angry about the world in forums. How many of us care enough to leave our homes and shout from the rooftops these same things? Not out of fear but mostly laziness.

Both are valid, both are real, and we are living in both as we speak.

I love the parliamentary system, but done properly, there is proper accountability. For example, the King serving for life means your check and balance has no need for political affiliation. Unlike the GG who holds that power in Canada who is appointed on the recommendation of the PM, which no recommendation has never been rejected by a monarch in modern history, ergo according to Canadian law means the PM selects their boss (confirmed by Justice Crampton). They choose and fire the AG and their recommendations are always approved by convention in Canada (confirmed by the investigation into the Wilson Raybould case), and they are able to escape accountability by proroguing parliament until other problems take precedent to not be held accountable in the house (currently what we're seeing with the Trump nonsense overtaking the green slush fund debate that every single opposition party was working together to hold them accountable for for the first time in almost a decade or more, which started in the fall and is still unresolved half a year later).

In the UK, judges have ruled on PM decisions, there is a precedent there. The King holds actual power. The House of Lords are a functional upper house with actual authority.

It's not like that here. Our systems are mostly superficial at best, and retirement plans for plutocrats at worst.

I do stand corrected on Carneys net worth, which also raises another question of, if he's good with money and knows what he's doing, why isn't he more rich? If you only have that much money as an investment banker, and after leaving as CEO of one of the largest companies in Canada, you're lying about your money, have it hidden somewhere else, or you owe a ton of money to people and are flat out broke. All of those should scare you as much as the concept of him being a multibillionaire, which there are no credible sources on, but I'd be more inclined to believe.

A good investment banker has no money, and their money is in, investments, in offshore accounts, that we would never know about.

My two cents. Totally all over the place on that one, sorry for the written spew.

I think that applies everywhere tbh. I don't think the people have power anymore at all.

When billionaires are your leaders, you aren't in control period.

He is an unelected dictator, and the point is that our system is flawed. He was not voted in, he was elected by a select few Canadians to run a party that has avoided confidence votes for months meaning they've avoided accountability to Canadians which a Supreme Court justice confirmed as problematic.

Like to say that he represents Canadians would be an absolute lie. He has absolute power, and yet has not faced a general election.

The justice even confirmed that PMs have no accountability even internally, as we saw with the Wilson Raybould crisis, we scandal, green slush fund, etc.

This guy bought himself the PM seat, and is now PM. How is that in anyway democratic?

Also to bring up whataboutisms just proves you have no serious dispute.

Also proportional representation is actually ridiculously stupid. What makes more sense is a ranked ballot first past the post.