

From the speaker’s point of view, not their point of view. Another misnomer for a democracy.


From the speaker’s point of view, not their point of view. Another misnomer for a democracy.


Left and right politics. Extreme right people don’t want rights for the people.
Part of the EU explanation:
We were prepared to support a text that emphasises the scale of the atrocity of the transatlantic slave trade, the importance of remembrance, and the need to continue combating slavery in its contemporary forms. Instead, the text before us raises a number of legal and factual concerns that we cannot overlook.
First, the use of superlatives in the context of crimes against humanity is not legally accurate, such as the use of “gravest” in the title and throughout the text, which implies a hierarchy among atrocity crimes, when no legal hierarchy between crimes against humanity exists. It risks undermining the harm suffered by all victims of these crimes and lacks legal clarity crucial for ensuring accountability. We firmly reject introducing ambiguity in this respect.
Second, the selective inclusion of lengthy, historical, and contentious references to regional jurisprudence and selective and unbalanced interpretation of historical events - such as in Preambular Paragraphs 21 and 23 - is at odds with accepted UN practice, as well as the stated universal and forward looking objective of this initiative. It risks creating divisions when unity is both necessary and achievable. The role of the General Assembly is not to substitute itself to the academic debate amongst historians.
Third, we are also concerned by certain legal references and assertions that are either inaccurate or inconsistent with international law. This includes suggestions of a retroactive application of international rules which was non-existent at the time and claims for reparations, which is incompatible with established principles of international law. The principle of non-retroactivity, a fundamental cornerstone of the international legal order, must be strictly upheld. References to claims for reparations also lack a sound legal basis. Any framework for reparatory justice must be grounded in existing multilateral instruments.
South Korea voting in favor of the resolution is surprising. They are team America and they were enslaved, but are not included in the resolution because they were not shipped to the Americas. Seeing one’s own enslavement as not as grave as the African one is a statement.


Should have kept the employees and offered them as consultants, packaged as loot boxes.


If they can’t implement the split then they need to control the president or Putin would use Trump against them.


Why would Xi have to pay?
If the US military is split up, would the billionaire’s armies be able to dominate China?


If the US military splits into 10 private armies, will those armies be able to compete with China?


It’s their country. The power that comes from owning a military doesn’t exist for billionaires who flee to Russia.


I think that’s a comforting assumption. They are not unfathomable intelligent but they are more intelligent than most people. If they were average, society could reign them in easily.


what he is able to buy for himself
To compete with Musk in building rockets.
There are always things that more money can buy.
walkout to protest ICE
That’s circular. ICE exists to introduce the new direction
freaked out every CEO
CEOs, but not billionaires. Those with billions can be as creepy as they want as Musk and his bought mothers show.
anyone at that level is capable of thinking about long term
that’s where they can actually do whatever they want
What would that be? Unless they all long for the most depraved sex and immense environmental destruction I don’t know what they couldn’t do.
They need to keep the army intact or America’s power will quickly dissolve. They need to keep people innovative or their army becomes useless with outdated weapons.
Owning a bunch of desperate humans is not fun.
There must be a reason to go along, but it must be something ‘good’. People do the most vile things to do something good.


Bezos and Buffett seem to be long-term strategists. Amazon will lose if China and Alibaba become the hegemon. All of Buffett’s long-term investments will fail if Chinese companies rule the world.
Managers are judged by quarterly reports, billionaires are not.


How can the US maintain hegemony under those conditions?


In which way do American billionaires profit from letting Russia own “their” president? Do they trust Putin to maintain American hegemonie?


The Connection: Use Tailscale.
Be prepared that this can be shut down.
There is no way around talking with politicians and other citizens to make sure that human rights and democracy is not further abandoned.


The flipside to it is that people still pay to have specific logos and brandings on their clothings and stuff.


I’m not personally yet seeing signs that the logic of MAD is failing
Reagan called for a system that would end MAD and render nuclear weapons obsolete.[2] Elements of the program reemerged in 2019 under the Space Development Agency (SDA).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Starshield
Add to that the thoughts behind tactical nukes.


We are witnessing the death throes of a wounded animal with suicidally inflated ego.
Unfortunately, this wounded animal also has nuclear weapons, so it’s a very dangerous time for all of us.
So we agree on what is going to happen?


The US must have been thinking about China at least since 1990. Now they fumble the hardest when they need to be the wittiest?
I don’t buy it. The US are preparing to contain China. At best they have AI and robotics first and retake global productions. But I expect a war. Edit: And unless the USA lose, the empire will remain for a long time.
It’s difficult to say what the winner will do with a most likely radioactive world. I would expect that there is no need for disinformation, especially if robots do the policing. So those people who survive will have a physical constrained, but intellectually rich life.
However, without AI and destroyed knowledge from bombing the civilization centers, technology could also fall back to the 1960s or even 1860s, but with internet.
But the problem was not the hiring but the firing process.