5 ms·

[flagged]

by supplied_demand 1y ago

[flagged]

thesuitonym 1y ago
It's what happens when a morally bankrupt party has nothing to offer except flimsy or made up grievances.
ETH_start 1y ago
[flagged]
- supplied_demand 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - mgkimsal 1y ago
    I can't reply to the previous post now, but the 'bailout' to Central States Pension Fund. $36b to deal with a pension fund serving 350k people. Yes, seems high. Yes, was an 'unusual' move, done during 2021 - height of covid. Why did CSPF need assistance? It never quite recovered from 2008 financial crisis - banks and other companies got 'bailouts' but not CSPF. Massive economic turmoil during 2020/2021 because of covid impacted the fund further. Might have been other or better ways of trying to address this (and many other covid issues). But we got what we got.
  - ETH_start 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - ETH_start 1y ago
        [flagged]
        sorcerer-mar 1y ago
        [flagged]
        dang 1y ago
        We've banned this account for using HN primarily for political battle and repeatedly breaking the site guidelines. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
        dang 1y ago
        We've banned this account for using HN primarily for political battle and repeatedly breaking the site guidelines. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
- sorcerer-mar 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - ETH_start 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - supplied_demand 1y ago
      Were all the grand juries and juries Democrats too?
    - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
      [flagged]
- input_sh 1y ago
  There were plenty of explanations from the White House why Tesla wasn't invited: because it was an UAW event. Tesla is notoriously anti-union and its employees are not represented by the UAW.
  - ETH_start 1y ago
    But it wasn't a UAW event. It was the Electric Vehicle Summit.
    - theurerjohn3 1y ago
      I mean, when the press secretary was asked why tesla wasnt invited, he said they invited the 3 largest employers of UAW. it sounds like a UAW event called 'Electric Vehicle Summit'? What led you to belive it wasnt about the UAW? just the name of the event?
    - input_sh 1y ago
      Sure, that's why Biden was introduced by an UAW member at a press conference that day, in which he first thanked the UAW, then the CEOs employing them, and then signed an executive order which offered additional tax credits on union-made EVs. Not that it matters anymore as Trump undid all of that, so there's no longer a pledge to switch to EVs, nor is there any sort of federal tax credit for purchasing EVs (technically there still is, but only until September). I'm sure this is a much better deal for Musk overall than not being invited to an event.
mgkimsal 1y ago
Thank you. I feel this frustration about the 'both sides'ing of every political argument. There is a huge difference in the quality and quantity of the basic political/social norms (and laws) being broken under this administration compared with previous administrations. Bush, Clinton, Obama and Biden had faults, but none were so blatant about power, control, retribution and self-enrichment, and none had surrounding supporters so eager to push a self-serving agenda. It's not even a close comparison. People got riled up when Biden was 'violating the Constitution' with multiple attempts at loan forgiveness. Some of the same people who hated Biden for this 'unconstitutional' behaviour voted for Trump because he promised to get rid of the Department of Education, in the misguided hope that their own student loans would be eliminated with the department. I don't quite know how we got to this level of stupid in the US - it may have always been there, just easier to see via social media?
- mschuster91 1y ago
  > There is a huge difference in the quality and quantity of the basic political/social norms (and laws) being broken under this administration compared with previous administrations. Indeed, but it's not just the administration that has issues whenever Republicans control it. I distinctly 'member McConnell filibustering his own bill, the Republicans sabotaging ACA (aided, of course, by Democrats trying to achieve bipartisan ownership even though they had a majority at the time [1]), or worst of all the Republicans refusing the appointment of Merrick Garland (citing that Obama was a lame-duck outgoing President) [3], only to do just the same thing with Barrett at the end of 2020, right before the elections [4]. Republicans, when in power, demand that Democrats cooperate with them (and Democrats are spineless enough to always play ball) - and when Democrats are in power, even if they have majorities, they obstruct in all ways possible. It's madness. [1] https://theweek.com/articles/469675/mitch-mcconnells-amazing-filibuster-bill https://theweek.com/articles/469675/mitch-mcconnells-amazing... [2] https://archive.ph/ZhYSP https://archive.ph/ZhYSP [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merrick_Garland_Supreme_Court_nomination https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merrick_Garland_Supreme_Court_... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Coney_Barrett https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Coney_Barrett
giantg2 1y ago
[flagged]
- supplied_demand 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - giantg2 1y ago
    "Based on your response, you are plenty sure." I legitimately wasn't sure at first. I had to look up many of the recent examples to assume who they were talking about. "The key phrase here is "in response to TX" which proves it is not literally the same thing. Just like if someone hits you in the face and you respond by hitting back, it is called self-defense and is treated differently than assault or battery." What you are overlooking is proportionality and continuing threat. Calling on additional states to do this is like telling someone to keep hitting someone after a single punch, which would be an escalation and result in charges in many cases. Frankly, it's a dumb comparison because doing something illegal just because someone else did it doesn't absolve you of any illegality and doesnt directly negate any harms from the first occurrence, only leading to the creation of additional harms in other states. "Threatening to do something is different than doing it and demanding payments." True. There can be other examples of both parties pulling funding for programs and organizations they don't like. "Going back 80 years to find your "counter argument" kind of proves my point." Or proves your cognitive bias. "It's in Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation has spoken about it plenty." Wasn't your prior argument that threats and actually doing it are two different things? Wouldn't that make this a moot point until it occurs? Sounds like this plan is basically just withholding federal funds if the states or cities don't comply with conditions. The feds do this with highways funds, schools funds, etc. Again, not really news if you've been paying attention. "This explains how Hegseth signed the deal with Qatar that allows him to keep a $400 million free plane even after his Presidency." It's going to the presidential library foundation. He might be able to use it, but he can't personally own it. Guess where ethe other gifts go? That's right, to the presidential libraries through the national archives. You might want to look into his other politicians use their charities, such as the Clintons. You're trying really hard to play a game of 'gotcha', but you just aren't looking at all the facts or examining your own biases.
tehwebguy 1y ago
I mean yeah one party is way, way worse but Democrats have funded all of the above, confirmed the appointments that are doing this, and pushed the conflation of policy protest with antisemitism. It’s really bleak at the national level!
- supplied_demand 1y ago
  The Big Beautiful Bill passed without any Democrats voting for it. Democrats are not great (or good) by any measure, but they did not confirm all the appointments that are doing this. ==Six nominees received no supporting votes from any Democratic senators or independent senators who caucus with Democrats: Hegseth, Russell Vought for director of the Office of Management and Budget, Gabbard, Kennedy, Howard Lutnick for secretary of commerce, and Linda McMahon for secretary of education. == https://ballotpedia.org/How_senators_voted_on_Trump_Cabinet_nominees,_2025 https://ballotpedia.org/How_senators_voted_on_Trump_Cabinet_...
  - tehwebguy 1y ago
    Yes, one party is way, way worse
- dang 1y ago
  Please don't perpetuate political flamewars on HN, regardless of what politics you favor or disfavor. Political topics can obviously be far more important than anything else on HN's frontpage, but that doesn't make the flamewar style of discussion ok on this site. It's repetitive and indignant, and those are the two qualities which most destroy what we're trying for, i.e. gratifying curiosity and facilitating curious exchange. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
Yeul 1y ago
Yep the reason why Democrats got their shit kicked in is because they kept to their principles.
dang 1y ago
Please don't start or perpetuate political flamewars on HN, regardless of what politics you favor or disfavor. Political topics can obviously be far more important than anything else on HN's frontpage, but that doesn't make the flamewar style of discussion ok on this site. It's repetitive and indignant, and those are the two qualities which most destroy what we're trying for, i.e. gratifying curiosity and facilitating curious exchange. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful. Edit: your account has unfortunately been breaking the site guidelines, such as by arguing aggressively with other users. We eventually have to ban accounts that do this. From a quick look I don't think you're quite over that line yet, but it could easily get there, so it would be good if you'd review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and recalibrate.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]

[flagged]

thesuitonym 1y ago

It's what happens when a morally bankrupt party has nothing to offer except flimsy or made up grievances.

ETH_start 1y ago

[flagged]

supplied_demand 1y ago
[flagged]
- mgkimsal 1y ago
  I can't reply to the previous post now, but the 'bailout' to Central States Pension Fund. $36b to deal with a pension fund serving 350k people. Yes, seems high. Yes, was an 'unusual' move, done during 2021 - height of covid. Why did CSPF need assistance? It never quite recovered from 2008 financial crisis - banks and other companies got 'bailouts' but not CSPF. Massive economic turmoil during 2020/2021 because of covid impacted the fund further. Might have been other or better ways of trying to address this (and many other covid issues). But we got what we got.
- ETH_start 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - ETH_start 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
        [flagged]
        dang 1y ago
        We've banned this account for using HN primarily for political battle and repeatedly breaking the site guidelines. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
      - dang 1y ago
        We've banned this account for using HN primarily for political battle and repeatedly breaking the site guidelines. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
sorcerer-mar 1y ago
[flagged]
- ETH_start 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - supplied_demand 1y ago
    Were all the grand juries and juries Democrats too?
  - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
    [flagged]
input_sh 1y ago
There were plenty of explanations from the White House why Tesla wasn't invited: because it was an UAW event. Tesla is notoriously anti-union and its employees are not represented by the UAW.
- ETH_start 1y ago
  But it wasn't a UAW event. It was the Electric Vehicle Summit.
  - theurerjohn3 1y ago
    I mean, when the press secretary was asked why tesla wasnt invited, he said they invited the 3 largest employers of UAW. it sounds like a UAW event called 'Electric Vehicle Summit'? What led you to belive it wasnt about the UAW? just the name of the event?
  - input_sh 1y ago
    Sure, that's why Biden was introduced by an UAW member at a press conference that day, in which he first thanked the UAW, then the CEOs employing them, and then signed an executive order which offered additional tax credits on union-made EVs. Not that it matters anymore as Trump undid all of that, so there's no longer a pledge to switch to EVs, nor is there any sort of federal tax credit for purchasing EVs (technically there still is, but only until September). I'm sure this is a much better deal for Musk overall than not being invited to an event.

mgkimsal 1y ago

Thank you. I feel this frustration about the 'both sides'ing of every political argument. There is a huge difference in the quality and quantity of the basic political/social norms (and laws) being broken under this administration compared with previous administrations. Bush, Clinton, Obama and Biden had faults, but none were so blatant about power, control, retribution and self-enrichment, and none had surrounding supporters so eager to push a self-serving agenda. It's not even a close comparison. People got riled up when Biden was 'violating the Constitution' with multiple attempts at loan forgiveness. Some of the same people who hated Biden for this 'unconstitutional' behaviour voted for Trump because he promised to get rid of the Department of Education, in the misguided hope that their own student loans would be eliminated with the department. I don't quite know how we got to this level of stupid in the US - it may have always been there, just easier to see via social media?

mschuster91 1y ago
> There is a huge difference in the quality and quantity of the basic political/social norms (and laws) being broken under this administration compared with previous administrations. Indeed, but it's not just the administration that has issues whenever Republicans control it. I distinctly 'member McConnell filibustering his own bill, the Republicans sabotaging ACA (aided, of course, by Democrats trying to achieve bipartisan ownership even though they had a majority at the time [1]), or worst of all the Republicans refusing the appointment of Merrick Garland (citing that Obama was a lame-duck outgoing President) [3], only to do just the same thing with Barrett at the end of 2020, right before the elections [4]. Republicans, when in power, demand that Democrats cooperate with them (and Democrats are spineless enough to always play ball) - and when Democrats are in power, even if they have majorities, they obstruct in all ways possible. It's madness. [1] https://theweek.com/articles/469675/mitch-mcconnells-amazing-filibuster-bill https://theweek.com/articles/469675/mitch-mcconnells-amazing... [2] https://archive.ph/ZhYSP https://archive.ph/ZhYSP [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merrick_Garland_Supreme_Court_nomination https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merrick_Garland_Supreme_Court_... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Coney_Barrett https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Coney_Barrett

giantg2 1y ago

[flagged]

supplied_demand 1y ago
[flagged]
- giantg2 1y ago
  "Based on your response, you are plenty sure." I legitimately wasn't sure at first. I had to look up many of the recent examples to assume who they were talking about. "The key phrase here is "in response to TX" which proves it is not literally the same thing. Just like if someone hits you in the face and you respond by hitting back, it is called self-defense and is treated differently than assault or battery." What you are overlooking is proportionality and continuing threat. Calling on additional states to do this is like telling someone to keep hitting someone after a single punch, which would be an escalation and result in charges in many cases. Frankly, it's a dumb comparison because doing something illegal just because someone else did it doesn't absolve you of any illegality and doesnt directly negate any harms from the first occurrence, only leading to the creation of additional harms in other states. "Threatening to do something is different than doing it and demanding payments." True. There can be other examples of both parties pulling funding for programs and organizations they don't like. "Going back 80 years to find your "counter argument" kind of proves my point." Or proves your cognitive bias. "It's in Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation has spoken about it plenty." Wasn't your prior argument that threats and actually doing it are two different things? Wouldn't that make this a moot point until it occurs? Sounds like this plan is basically just withholding federal funds if the states or cities don't comply with conditions. The feds do this with highways funds, schools funds, etc. Again, not really news if you've been paying attention. "This explains how Hegseth signed the deal with Qatar that allows him to keep a $400 million free plane even after his Presidency." It's going to the presidential library foundation. He might be able to use it, but he can't personally own it. Guess where ethe other gifts go? That's right, to the presidential libraries through the national archives. You might want to look into his other politicians use their charities, such as the Clintons. You're trying really hard to play a game of 'gotcha', but you just aren't looking at all the facts or examining your own biases.

tehwebguy 1y ago

I mean yeah one party is way, way worse but Democrats have funded all of the above, confirmed the appointments that are doing this, and pushed the conflation of policy protest with antisemitism. It’s really bleak at the national level!

supplied_demand 1y ago
The Big Beautiful Bill passed without any Democrats voting for it. Democrats are not great (or good) by any measure, but they did not confirm all the appointments that are doing this. ==Six nominees received no supporting votes from any Democratic senators or independent senators who caucus with Democrats: Hegseth, Russell Vought for director of the Office of Management and Budget, Gabbard, Kennedy, Howard Lutnick for secretary of commerce, and Linda McMahon for secretary of education. == https://ballotpedia.org/How_senators_voted_on_Trump_Cabinet_nominees,_2025 https://ballotpedia.org/How_senators_voted_on_Trump_Cabinet_...
- tehwebguy 1y ago
  Yes, one party is way, way worse
dang 1y ago
Please don't perpetuate political flamewars on HN, regardless of what politics you favor or disfavor. Political topics can obviously be far more important than anything else on HN's frontpage, but that doesn't make the flamewar style of discussion ok on this site. It's repetitive and indignant, and those are the two qualities which most destroy what we're trying for, i.e. gratifying curiosity and facilitating curious exchange. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.

Yeul 1y ago

Yep the reason why Democrats got their shit kicked in is because they kept to their principles.

dang 1y ago

Please don't start or perpetuate political flamewars on HN, regardless of what politics you favor or disfavor. Political topics can obviously be far more important than anything else on HN's frontpage, but that doesn't make the flamewar style of discussion ok on this site. It's repetitive and indignant, and those are the two qualities which most destroy what we're trying for, i.e. gratifying curiosity and facilitating curious exchange. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful. Edit: your account has unfortunately been breaking the site guidelines, such as by arguing aggressively with other users. We eventually have to ban accounts that do this. From a quick look I don't think you're quite over that line yet, but it could easily get there, so it would be good if you'd review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and recalibrate.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]