to disregard the context in which the founding fathers' ideologies developed is to ignore the utter hypocrisy of their views.
these were wealthy men who owned other human beings for personal economic benefit.
whatever high-seeming notions may have underpinned their political project, their goal was to build a new nation in which they could continue to accumulate dynastic wealth free from monarchial control, at the cost of the very freedoms they claimed to stand for.
I would argue that it was much bigger at that time. How many days of sailing would it take to cross the ocean? How undeveloped was the entirety of what we now have as the US?
Edit: I'm a fool and read the parent completely incorrectly. Ignore this comment.
How is it not in American interest to stop wasting money on a proxy war? Yes, Russia should not have invaded Ukraine, but they did and they have basically won.
If news reports are at all accurate, our military isn't as great as we think (our of resources to send to Ukraine, poor ability to resupply quickly) it is and the theater of war has changed to be more drone focused than ever before.
Why have there been next to no peace talks since the beginning of the war? How much more money will we spend on another quagmire of intervention? There are plenty of issues here at home that need more attention and money than this proxy war. Like our unsustainable debt.
I used to use Mint, and now use Monarch since Mint shutdown. I'm pretty content with it as a tool to aggregate various accounts into a single place for review.
Trump was willing to build a coalition while Democrats were not. RFK, assuming he gets past the Senate, will be in a substantially better position to influence health policy than if he were to have snubbed Trump.
The game of politics makes enemies one day become allies the next. If you want real progress on an agenda, being dogmatic generally isn't the best way to accomplish it (imo).
I'm not American, but to me this looks like a preposterous take, when the Democrats had Cheney and a pile of other Republicans lined up in what looks more to me like a coalition than getting the endorsement of a bizarre personality-cult fringe candidate.
It depends on your perspective. Dick Cheney is generally considered persona non gratta due to his role in pushing the US into forever wars during the Bush Jr years. The Left hated him during the Bush and Obama years, the Right came around to hating him during the Obama and Trump years.
Trump Republicans very much dislike Liz Cheney for being completely against Trump during J6 investigations, and recent news implicates Liz Cheney in having tampered with lawyer relations for one the J6 testifiers [1,2]. Right-leaning commentary during the J6 investigations considered them sham investigations with the Republicans on the J6 committee often called RINOs (Republicans In Name Only), as those Republicans were anti-Trump.
This is the perspective that makes the Chenys supporting Democrats seem ridiculous. Other republicans supporting the Democrats generally have pro-war big government views which are largely incompatible with the new Trump Republican base.
I'll disagree that this was just an "endorsement of bizzare personality-cult fringe candidate" as these individuals all have some political pull and have been given substantial positions in the upcoming administrations.
Cheney is just one person in a long list of republicans who endorsed Harris[1], and these people were part of a much longer list of republicans who opposed Trump[2].
Meanwhile The Trump-endorsing 'coalition' individuals in question are wildly unserious people, to the point that they're going to be laughed out of their senate confirmation hearings if they don't withdraw beforehand.
This is correct, there is an unfortunate acceptance of a lot of political mythology that I believe explains the results of the election (as we see above).
The GOP couldn't even form a coalition with itself, you saw a lot of people within the GOP who wouldn't endorse their candidate (the most stark example being the former VP). The democratic nominee coalition built to a fault. Many point to exactly this, and the failure to scorch the opposition to the degree warranted, as the reason for the loss.
RFK is your garden variety opportunist grifter, as are the entire confederacy of scammers and dunces (no offense, this is strictly a factual assessment) who are now on their way to positions of power based purely on their loyalty.
"Walter Cicack, an attorney for First United American Companies, told U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Christopher Lopez that Murray changed the auction process only days before, deciding not to hold a round Wednesday where parties could outbid each other. Sealed bids were submitted last week, and the trustee chose only from those, Cicack said."
"“We’re all going to an evidentiary hearing and I’m going to figure out exactly what happened,” he said. “No one should feel comfortable with the results of this auction.”
An exact date of next week’s hearing was not immediately set.
After the hearing, Jones said on his show that he thought the auction was unfairly rigged and expressed optimism that the judge would nullify the sale."
Changing the bidding process days in advance and then accepting the lower bid (out of two) seems less normal though. I think it's obvious they're trying to stop Jones and his associates from simply buying back the business.
I'm not sure of the legal details but apparently the judge had misgivings about the procedure so here we are
A trustee's responsibility is to creditors. While directing the disposition of assets, a trustee may judge that a secondary offer better serves the creditors.
In this case, the creditors are the Sandy Hook families who were wronged by Jones. It is my understanding that they had a hand in The Onion's offer. I suspect they signaled a desire for this sale to the trustee - but that is just a guess.
source:prepped personal bankruptcy cases for a couple of years
Thanks. Something I wish the reporting would note is how common this kind of thing is. Is it normal, and do the results change often/ever with these reviews? Questions that would be good for an AP journalist to look into when they know what conspiracy-minded people watching a case like this will assume.
I can't fault a judge for wanting to make sure everything is copasetic with the kind of numbers and personalities involved.
Oil is made over millions of years and we’re on track to deplete it in under 200 years. We’ll never completely deplete it because the oil that’s left will be uneconomical to extract, but that’s functionally the same thing.
Are those rules necessary? Do those rules have to be implemented at the federal level? Can the states take responsibility for some of the items instead?
Humanity is hundreds of thousands of years old, changing over time to reach it's current state. How many ups and downs have there been for us to arrive here? This just seems like extremist negativity to me. Is there nothing positive in the world to look at?
If there are such problems in the world, then resolve them. Don't just die.
We're people in these downturns enjoying life? Our downturn is self made and (was) avoidable. But instead our captains are drunk and refuse to steer the ship away from icebergs that we can clearly see.
You can of course still be content in life and ignore all this. I'd like to think that humanity can be better, what makes me sad is that we aren't, or our current system of society and government makes it impossible.
