Also if they didn't mess with the primary through media contacts, plus the media itself having its own biases due to their corporate owners and neoliberal talk show hosts, plus things like being able to offer favors to certain candidates for dropping out, or using past power like Obama to secure endorsements and stuff. It's super rigged.
So does Firefox make this more unique or something? I didn't know this was a thing but I'm interested in privacy and it sound like something I should be looking into.
Haha I saw it as meaning in the first trimester a woman can get an abortion with just telling her doctor and having complete privacy without anyone else getting involved. In the second trimester, a doctor may get involved if there's a medical emergency if they need to without the state being involved. I guess in the third trimester, and only then, is it up to each state if they want to get involved. There was some verbal weirdness in the way he said it, but I thought that was the general idea.
The President has plenty of power here. They can halt shipments like he did one time, which proved he could try that. He could not veto ceasefire deals in the UN. He could assign a better secretary of state that doesn't run interference for Israel. He could not jump the gun making pro Israel statements or supporting suppressing the protests, than staying otherwise silent when they do things wrong like even kill American aide workers or Palestinian journalists. He could veto laws that get to him. He could rile up the populace to contact their local Congressmen and publish Israel's wrongdoings in press conferences, while he's only been doing that for pro-Palestinian "wrong-doing", often getting the facts wrong in the process. He could threaten Israel harder to let aid through the ground. Even if some of these fail, it shows who he supports at least.
Biden has publicly criticized Russia and China before. Every US President has made statements against countries like North Korea or Iran. It's the literally the least he could do.
It's why I stopped using Reddit on mobile lol. No, I don't want to download your official app, and no you making it so I need it to access NSFW stuff will convince me to.
Same with X/Twitter. I hate when people put information in those now because you can't read more than one at a time in some reply to self thread on there without downloading the app. Especially when it's important news or on the ground reporting. Screw that. All those reporters need to use mastadon.
It sounds like a really specific definition, but you'd be surprised by how often it applies. He originally thought of it to apply to Tik Tok after noticing it following a similar pattern as Facebook, Amazon, and I think Google. Then the internet realized it could keep applying his term to so many more companies, like Spotify, Uber, Lyft, Airbnb, Reddit, Microsoft, Apple, all streaming companies, and even physical product companies like car companies or John Deere, etc and it's shot up in popularity and use since then.
Not sure of the general use case you describe, but the person who invented the term in that article I linked sounds like he doesn't mind if it's used in a more general case for things getting worse from greed, so feel free to go ahead and keep using it I guess lol. Although maybe we should come up with a different, more general term for that if there isn't already one? I've got nothing, but if anyone has suggestions lol.
Sure you can bribe people, but it's a harder when the wealth isn't concentrated in a few people, and the companies are owned by the people instead of private interests. USSR politicians weren't known for being rich, but compare that to modern Russian oligarchs, or even US Congressmen. A majority of the US Congressman are millionaires, not at all true for the common populace.
I'm going off statistics and surveys, not anecdotal evidence.
Don't I have the power over my happiness in capitalism because I can work towards higher wealth extraction to achieve my own goals?.
If you're lucky, but you can't work your way to being billionaire without exploiting people on the way. So, chances are, no. Statistically you're probably one of the people having wealth extracted than the other way around unless you have a supportive network, friendly investors or parents loaning you money. If not, chances are you're making it harder for other people, either who work for you, work with you, act as a reserve army of labor, or are victims of your country's imperialism. It requires some people to suffer as part of the system, but that's not sustainable. There's a reason the US has a shrinking middle class, and a growing fascism problem, and economic crises every 10 years. The UK and Canada aren't far behind, with some groups trying to privatize their health services and such. Europe will be next, with the democratic socialist Scandinavian countries probably last. So it may seem fine where you live now, but give it some years and you'll be right where we are, with someone trying to sell off your health services or other state assets. I'd be willing to bet.
Because once you reach a certain level, growth isn't required, you just divide the resources you have to give everyone a happy life. People don't need infinite money to be happy, but they do a need a minimum amount, studies have shown that. Capitalism denies that minimum amount to a lot of people because of its focus on accumulating and concentrating that wealth.
At least he sounded a lot more energetic and present in this speech. What happened on stage?