Pobodies nerfect…
- 0 Posts
- 67 Comments
MJKee9@lemmy.worldto News@lemmy.world•TN high schooler’s diploma withheld after coming out as gay on social media5·1 month agoThe conservatives on the supreme Court haven’t been consistent in decades. For then stare decises and judicial ethics are annoyances that should be ignored at all costs.
MJKee9@lemmy.worldto Games@lemmy.world•Lies of P is getting difficulty options to make the Soulslike more accessibleEnglish1·2 months agoMy favorite souls like… Excited for more content!
MJKee9@lemmy.worldto Games@lemmy.world•Doom: The Dark Ages | Official Launch Trailer | Available May 15, 2025English3·2 months agoIs this supposed to be a prequel to doom 2016/eternal?
MJKee9@lemmy.worldto News@lemmy.world•DNC chair rebukes David Hogg for pushing primaries against Democratic incumbents101·3 months agoJustice for Bernie!
MJKee9@lemmy.worldto No Stupid Questions@lemmy.world•dear republicans, what's the point of alienating every single ally of the US?1·4 months agoYou understand that the only way the current economic policy results in what you’re suggesting is everybody is brought down to such a desperate place that they are willing to work for pennies to possibly feed their family crumbs. All because the corporations that are paying the wages want 98% profit, not 97% profit. And the reason is national security concerns? If you’re worried about national security concerns then why base a solution on capitalism? We are putting more and more power and placing more and more preference on the corporation as opposed to the individual. A corporation does not give two shits about national security concerns. The only thing they care about is how can we use national security breaches to make more money.
Therefore, your line of reasoning just doesn’t make any sense. It assumes that you live in a world that doesn’t exist. Furthermore, it completely ignores the source of the problem: unregulated capitalism. If your national security is dependent upon your economic policy, you’re doing things wrong.
MJKee9@lemmy.worldto No Stupid Questions@lemmy.world•dear republicans, what's the point of alienating every single ally of the US?3·4 months agoWho do you think transfers more money out of this country. The individual citizens buying vacuum cleaners, or corporations and billionaires who funneled their money to tax havens overseas. The only people harmed by the current economic policy are individuals trying to feed their families. Corporations are making more money than ever before. The wealthiest people in the world are more wealthy than they ever have been in recent history.
But you know what? Let’s just put all the blame and responsibilty on the families. They should have bought their vacuum cleaners from cousin Billy down the street. The shitty economy is all their fault.
Do you hear how silly that sounds?
MJKee9@lemmy.worldto No Stupid Questions@lemmy.world•dear republicans, what's the point of alienating every single ally of the US?11·4 months agoHow does creating a local industry of cheap knockoffs help the US economy exactly? What you’re describing is turning the United States into a random poorer country. That plan only makes sense if the ultimate goal is to diminish the United States economy and its influence in the world. That benefits China and India. It doesn’t benefit the United States domestically.
Here’s a better idea, invest in your people to create an economy and society that doesn’t rely upon raping other country for labor and materials.
MJKee9@lemmy.worldto No Stupid Questions@lemmy.world•dear republicans, what's the point of alienating every single ally of the US?62·4 months agoThat position has a few inaccurate assumptions. The first being that the machines of capitalism, corporate entities, are tied to geographical regions. Today Apple could just move its base of operations to a country. Willing to have it. That isn’t the US. All the company cares about is profit. It doesn’t care about profit while having its base of operations in the United States. If the political climate is too unpredictable and the profits aren’t easily obtainable, they’re going to move to some place where the profits are more easily obtainable.
Another assumption you’re making is that capitalism is the only solution. It really doesn’t make sense addressing this assumption. If you believe one way, my words on the internet aren’t going to make you believe it another way.
But another assumption implied in your thesis is that bringing back jobs is going to fix the problem. This conclusion fails to consider the fundamental nature of capitalism. Capitalism only prevails when there is constant growth of profit and more importantly for your position, growth of the consumer base. The reason why the United States were such successful Capitalists, was because of our booming population Post world war II. You had this constantly increasing stream of consumers that are necessary for the companies to make profit along with a stable and ever-growing manufacturing base. Those conditions don’t currently exist in the United States.
To that end, the countries at an advantage for the next capitalistic explosion are those with huge populations like India and China. So trying to win the international battle of capitalism is a losing proposition for the United States in the foreseeable future.
MJKee9@lemmy.worldto No Stupid Questions@lemmy.world•dear republicans, what's the point of alienating every single ally of the US?131·4 months agoI’m having a hard time following. How is the trade war going to lead to recovering outsourced jobs? Isn’t it more likely to cause businesses to decrease their US operations?
The reason why jobs are outsourced is so companies can take advantage of cheaper labor and operation costs. Other than sending the us economy into a downward spiral that makes people want to work at slave level wages… Not seeing the connection.
MJKee9@lemmy.worldto World News@lemmy.world•Divided Supreme Court reinstates order requiring Trump administration to release frozen foreign aidEnglish31·4 months agoPardons don’t protect against civil liability. Example: a pardoned person won’t go to prison for shooting someone in the leg. But the person who got shot can still sue for pain and suffering etc
MJKee9@lemmy.worldto News@lemmy.world•Trump names Mel Gibson, Jon Voight and Sylvester Stallone as Hollywood ‘special ambassadors’2·6 months agoHe loves Trump… Whether that is “big” or not depends on you, i guess.
MJKee9@lemmy.worldto News@lemmy.world•A lot of Americans are Googling 'what is oligarchy?' after Biden's farewell speech214·6 months agoThe DNC is complicit and has been for years… But betraying Bernie was the inciting incident for the US’s most recent foray into authoritarianism.
MJKee9@lemmy.worldto News@lemmy.world•The UnitedHealthcare CEO shooter's meticulous planning has helped him evade police so far, experts say22·7 months agoExplain a $10k reward that is being advertised with the picture that you’re trying to say shouldn’t be posted? Stop being ridiculous. Are you being serious? You’re just trolling right?
MJKee9@lemmy.worldto News@lemmy.world•The UnitedHealthcare CEO shooter's meticulous planning has helped him evade police so far, experts say162·7 months agoI’m sure that if people stop posting the photo the police are going to forget that they have a photo of his face…
I am going to assume you are high or were under the influence of something when you posted this.
MJKee9@lemmy.worldto Technology@lemmy.world•U.S. officials urge Americans to use encrypted apps amid unprecedented cyberattackEnglish12·7 months agoI’m just responding to your comment. If you were only talking about encryption, then maybe word your comment more clearly… Especially if you want to cast aspersions towards other about staying on topic.
MJKee9@lemmy.worldto Technology@lemmy.world•U.S. officials urge Americans to use encrypted apps amid unprecedented cyberattackEnglish172·7 months agoOnly if you look at it in the most general, limited, pov. Are they the same people on corporate greed? Not all, but mostly yes. Are they the same people on encryption? Yes. Are they the same on human rights? Absolutely fucking not. If the only thing important for you is encryption, voting isn’t going to change the government’s policy decisions. However, if things other than encryption and corporate greed are important, then voting for a Republican is voting against your interests. History is filled with people who can’t see past their own fucking biases and look out for the greater interest… So you have a lot of historical company.
Huh? What point are you making in asking the question? Their point seems crystal to me.
Well that’s chop suey!