It's also the employees of the companies that shut down thanks to embezzlement and theft.
Structuring your nation's laws around the longevity of companies is a terrible idea. Most companies should fail, because most companies are bullshit created by ambitious idiots and/or scofflaws and deserve failure. Most companies that have ever existed are gone today. And that's fine. That's healthy.
I am not a fan of prediction markets myself, but I am extremely happy to see them win this case.
Okay, fine, let's see some consistency then. If we've established legal precedent that gambling is a-okay, then break out the black jack and hookers (well, legalizing the hookers can be step #2).
The problem I have with this is they've somehow shoehorned prediction markets into some other legal definition where it isn't gambling. That'd be like successfully arguing in court that torrenting Hollywood films isn't actually violating copyright laws, because it's just like loaning your copy of your Blu-Ray to a friend, but over the internet. It's obvious that the only real consistency here, is that the entities with the most money got a ruling in their favor.
Loss of heads is part of. Economic collapse is another part of it.
You can't get rich anymore if there's no one with any money to spend.
Ultimately, way down there in the dredges, someone with not a lot of money needs to buy something that leads to money getting to you.
You can only hollow out the bottom so much.
Ah, but that's the ultimate wealth. If you own all the money, you also own all the people. As in, literal slavery.
And that is exactly the goal for some of these fuckers.
What is even better than being able to brag to your friends is to be able to complain to your friends and family. So this is the gift that keeps on giving.
I believe what you're describing is called the Responsibility to Protect. There are at least three problems with asserting the Responsibility to Protect in this instance: first, "These existing international obligations require States to refrain from and take a number of actions to prevent and punish genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity." None of these are present in Iran. (Arguably, the attacks by the US and Israel on Iran could be considered both war crimes and crimes against humanity.)
The assertion crimes against humanity have not been promulgated by the Iranian regime is a bold faced lie.
I question your evidence for some of those atrocities, but nonetheless, some points:
"Despite Iran's shutting down the internet and disrupting phone service, some Iranians managed to evade restrictions to share witness accounts and hundreds of videos, many of which The New York Times was able to collect and authenticate."
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/0...
"As many as 30,000 people could have been killed in the streets of Iran on Jan. 8 and 9 alone, two senior officials of the countryâ(TM)s Ministry of Health told TIME - indicating a dramatic surge in the death toll."
https://time.com/7357635/more-...
1. You're making an assumption that the US has not only the right and obligation to invade another country in order to stop atrocities, but that intervention would be effective.
Nonsense, I've done no such thing. Stop lying. What I have done is respond to your manifestly absurd claim there is no "moral right". To be perfectly clear I have NOT at any time over the last two decades supported a US invasion of Iran. I voted against John McCain for president in 2008 simply for having joked about it.
I do presently very much support "finishing the job" now that a war has started following the January massacres.
You're assuming that intervention by the US ensures success.
Again you brazenly misrepresent my position. Please do not lie about me or put words into my mouth. I didn't say this here nor have I ever made any such assumption. I believe the current US intervention is more likely than not to end in failure (e.g regime survival). A statement I have made repeatedly in the past.
Recent experience in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya strongly indicates the opposite.
Those interventions made things much worse: hundreds of thousands of people killed and millions displaced from their homes, producing millions of refugees.
I believe the war in Afghanistan was warranted and justified following 9/11 and further believe the Doha betrayal / surrender was a mistake. I also strongly disagreed with KSA getting a pass. I did not support wars in Iraq or Libya and publicly advocated against them. No matter what happens in Iran going forward there are no safe options.
2. Moral principles must be universal to be respected. That is, if I assert that you have a moral obligation to do or not do something, that implies that I also have the same obligation. So if the US has a right or a duty to intervene in Iran to stop their government from doing evil (as decided by the US), then Iran has the same right and duty to intervene in the US, based on their judgment.
While I believe in the golden rule I reject this absurd abstraction whereby dueling sensibilities are deemed equivalent. I have a problem with the value judgements of twelver fundamentalists who promote sigheh with 9 year old girls, murder civilians for "waging war against god" (e.g. protesting) and intentionally massacre tens of thousands of unarmed men, women and children enmasse.
I refuse to accept your absurd framing of universal equivalence of any and all moral judgements. I do not accept the morality of dark age bullshit being promulgated by the zelots of the Iranian regime and I don't give a f*** if they disagree with my moral judgements.
Do you agree that Iran has a right to attack the US, invade, or try to overthrow the US government to stop some action which, in the estimation of the Iranian government, is immoral? To impose Islam, for exampe? Estimates of the number of people who die in the US every year because they lack health insurance vary between 26,000 (2006) and 68,000 (2020). Does Iran have a duty to correct that?
No absolutely not. I support intervention only where feasible factoring in a great deal of deference and tolerance for sovereignty of states. I disagree with the premise every reason that any dark age crackpot comes up with is equally valid as any other reason. That is patently absurd. In short I believe the Iranian regime has a "duty" to get itself wrecked if it tries to invade the US.
3. If the US has a responsibility to protect people in Iran from their own government, surely it has at least an equal resposibility to protect people in Gaza from the government of Israel. Instead, the US has facilitated violence in Gaza by providing funding and war materiel to Israel.
I don't give a fuck about the Gaza issue and refuse to pick a side. There is no party to that conflict worth giving a shit about. Gaza is governed by a death cult that intentionally massacred over a thousand civilians also taking hundreds of hostages in 2023. It is no kinder to its own population which it terrorizes, wholesale murders political opposition and rules by force with summary executions. The Israelis for their part under BB are hyper militant.. infinite settlement expansion, blockades and oppression that is more interested in settlement expansion than living in peace. When it responds to attacks it has little regard for collateral civilian casualties. They deserve each other.
So what's up with that? Is there really a responsibility to protect, or does that only apply to countries the US considers unfriendly?
I would say the Biden administration did at least try to open humanitarian corridors and demand that aid get into Gaza but I didn't agree with the administrations actions. If I were president I wouldn't give shit to Israel. Trump's idea of taking over Gaza and turning it into a real estate development is genocide and he should face justice accordingly if he ever tries it.
Here's a big list of diversity hires. https://www.whitehouse.gov/adm...
Most are grossly unqualified.
You sound American.
Gas prices are up globally because orange jesus made the middle east situation that much worse. It's also laughable how suddenly they care very much about the plight of the Iranian people while simultaneously cheering at masked men snatching people from the streets and transporting them to concentration camps.
I double checked your figures and you are correct. You know what's also funny? $5.25 trilion was collected in 2025.
In 2024 $4.92 trillion was collected.
How do you feel about you tax increase courtesy of Trump?
Of particular note is the "wealth fund": It seems to suggest a socialist co-operative, delivering profits to the people. How this co-operative refuses to compete against private vendors, is not discussed. It is suggested instead, that the co-operative would be fascist, or at least, out-sourcing its functions to private vendors: Like the US DoD and similar departments currently do. The USA has 140 years of history, explaining how well that fails.
It is refreshing that a millionaire has the honesty to include all people in his vision of a (economically) richer world. But the driving forces of US "exceptionalism" over the last 400 years have been discrimination, poverty and cruelty: His vision is the opposite and it's impossible to imagine how the USA will re-define itself and its culture, to comply.
That's why Microsoft attempts again to block Google Chrome, forcing Windows users to share their data with Microsoft is entertaining. I wonder if all the corporations forced to fight Microsoft Edge, feel entertained, as well as Google which is again being sabotaged by Microsoft.
It makes someone pray that gunmen visit Microsoft's CEO: The CEO can keep the three bullets fired into his body, they are purely for entertainment. Okay, attacking a web-browser isn't life-threatening. But it's the same "don't care" psychopathic behaviour. Microsoft doesn't hide its 'too big to care' enshitification, it forces a legal disclaimer onto its victims. Can gunmen put a legal disclaimer on their bullets? It's always been horrifying what US politicians and corporations can do without consequences. The fact they can now admit it their abuses in advance, is beyond sanity.
Your argument only makes sense if the people who are being displaced by AI have the option to become AI
Did the transistor companies get taxed to "compensate" the people/companies who made vacuum tubes that would be put out of work? No.
That would be the original trans panic.
16.5 feet in the Twilight Zone = 1 Rod Serling
