I guess tell that to the hostages he rescued.
I guess tell that to the illicit drugs that won't be comming here through Venezuela via Columbia.
The previous administration pardoned their whole fucking family, shielded Faucci from investigation, pardoned witness tampering on J6, Coordinated with major social network companies to restrict free speech....are you fucking kidding me? The current administration is _more_ corrupt??

The TDS here is overwhelming! Seriously, please seek professional help.

And no, tarifs didn't make billionaires richer. If you think that retailers can just start charging more because they feel like it, why don't they do it all the time? The markets dictate prices, and in this case the companies at worst split the difference between consumers and the manufacturers, and 99% of the time ate the cost and took it from profits because, again, if they could just charge more for goods, they would. Don't believe me? Look at the housing markets.

When the US imposed high steel tarifs on steel imports, Canada complained about it, even tho China was using Canada as an intermediary to 'launder' steel sourcing through Canada (Canada buys from China, Canada sells to US). Canadian government (and general population of people I personally interacted with) complained how racist and unfair the administration acted (orange man bad). Interesting how the attitude on tariffs can align so closely to orange hitler when it suits their purposes.

What kind of marxist-commie-gobbledygook is this?

If course there is such a thing as 'making money'.

If you have an artist that paints a painting that someone is willing to buy, did the artist not just 'make money'?
If a musician creates new music and a spectacle of light and sound that people from around the world will want to pay money for, didn't the musician 'make money'?
Didn't the farmers who harvested the dyes and pigments to make the paints, and the engineers that built the arenas make money?

Your perspective demonstrates impressive ignorance. Ignorance that could be extremely harmful if promoted to positions of policy-making. I hope you reflect on this before you cast your next vote.

Do you make money? Did you do this by starting a business? You can't imagine any other way to make money? (hint: learn a valuable skill that can translate to a high-paying job).

My prediction of your answers: Yes, No, Oh yeah....

Wow...race-bait much?

What I said could obviously concluded without declaring that heinous, racist, sexist statement that you made.

Because you might be of very low IQ, I'll spell it out for you:

When you just give someone money without any education, discipline or lifestyle accomodation to generate that money, you've set up a situation where someone becomes dependent on this free money without building any of the skills needed to generate an income for themselves.

It might be better to introduce something of a 'match' where each earned dollar earned is met with a matching dollar to stimulate productivity. In this way, there is some motivation to work smarter, more efficiently, and more economical. But even this has the negative effect of inflating the value of labor. The whole key to thriving in an economy is producing something that people want, either by providing a service, skill or product. These free hand outs run a real risk of 'dumbing down' a workforce by removing the motivation to evolve or innovate.

This should be obvious: this impacts black, white, asian, etc equally. I'm not going to make some racist claim like you would that this has something to do with minorities or women. This is an consequence that would apply to all humans equally.

...those people receiving this free money have no idea how to make more of it.

In order for insurance to be effective, you have to have a reasonable understanding of risk. Better to evaluate this by sky-drone vs. having to send out people to inspect properties for these issues.

Does anyone really consider this a violation of privacy when you are simultaneously expect them to cover any insurance-related claim without any oversight? Sounds like the 'entitled generation' to me...

In any case, getting people in compliance by declaring dangerous things like trampolines or swimming pools will mean that people who take those risks can pay higher premiums thus giving relief to those that have simple homes and low-risk environments.

To those who have insurance and feel like this is just insurance companies trying to 'get people' with gotchas, you should realize you want these people off your plans so that they don't incur rate hikes for everyone.

Where is that assumption making made? The question is clearly asking what (if any) the impact of it is, not that there is an assumption as the sole impact.

Please present this "contradicting data" you are referencing. There is clearly a lot of evidence pointing to negative impacts across different sectors (Retail: Target, Entertainment: Disney, etc). But I don't think I should accept this hand-waving that there is "contradicting data" when you haven't shown what and how something is contradicted.

Maybe he was stuck in DEI meetings being told that holding a trump flag is white supremacy.

Well, keep waiting, because I wasn't asserting that at all.

DEI is an energy and focus drain. IMO, on an issue that doesn't exist, but that's debatable. But it is energy that is not being put into making the best product (unless you want to assert the color of your skin or what's between your legs impacts the quality of a product...and if so...who's the racist, again?).

If DEI is causing a drain on focus and expertise in industries that involves hurling people through the sky, don't you think it's worth checking if it's having a negative effect?

No idea where you got that idea of Objectivism.

Here's what ChatGPT says (maybe not an expert, but based on what the LLM learned from analysing the corpus of information on the subject):

---

Objectivism is a philosophical system developed by Ayn Rand, a Russian-American writer and philosopher. It emphasizes the importance of reason, individualism, and rational self-interest as the primary moral virtues. Objectivism holds that reality exists independently of consciousness and that reason is the only means of acquiring knowledge. It advocates for laissez-faire capitalism, asserting that individuals have the right to pursue their own self-interest without interference from the state or other individuals, provided they respect the rights of others to do the same. Objectivism also rejects altruism as a moral ideal and instead upholds rational self-interest as the proper guiding principle for human behavior.

---

Where would you get the 'worship of business leaders as they can do no wrong' from the 'rational self-interests as the proper guiding principle for human behavior'?

Yeah! It is! because now their mistakes are being punished. If this was some socialist or communist state, the government would point the blame to anything except decisions made by the company. It's like the law in Venezuela that sated they could not claim cause of death was starvation in children.

Capitalism lets the population take action against bad actors. In socialist contrives, it involves bloody revolution. Which position are you arguing for, exactly?

From the article, the statements seem to reflect on the state of hiring practices...who were those people who were getting advanced degrees? Recent trends have been more women...is that the article's way of obscuring the impact of DEI? Would be interesting to study how DEI principles (equity over merit) played a role in the decline of quality....or without DEI iw would have been worse? That last bit was to appease the activists which will no doubt rush to downvote even questioning DEI in this context...

Do all you guys to are citing liberty concerns feel the same way about voter ID laws? As in: people shouldn't need to divulge personal information in order to vote?

I don't seem to remember any outcry about this when they sought warrants to identify readers and followers of Trump's twitter account and other social media....