It is factually incorrect. It is not giving them money, it is taking less money from them. That has different consequences under tax law and describing it that way also completely muddles people’s understanding of how the budget works.
I hate the language around the federal budget. First, how budget figures are reporting in 10 year intervals, when everything else is reported in 1 year intervals. So everything sounds 10 times bigger. When like only 5% of the population ever looks at the federal budget, this creates a TON of confusion.
Second, how reductions in tax (like to the rich) are reported as “giveaways”. Taxes go in, not out. That’s a reduction in revenue, not an expenditure or liability. You can say, “shift the tax burden even more onto the lower and middle classes”. Then it’s actually accurate. Getting fired from your job is not an expense, it’s a loss of income. Same thing.
Uh-huh. So of all the options - just shooting adult deer, or restoring the ecosystem to the way it was, or actual scientific approaches like sterilization, you’re only interested in the one that benefits you, and then you start ignoring the moral implications, and associated risks like humans getting shot. See, the conversation would go smoother if you just declare from the outset that you only care about what benefits you, and we could drop the pretense that this is about what’s actually the best solution.
Taking just the “solution” of reintroducing predators - it’s still not the same. Predation specifically targets old, weak, sick members of a herd. What do hunters do? It’s what, a tag limit and age limit, and that’s it.
This whole conversation always seems so disingenuous. People doing hunting claim these altruistic motives, but have every adverse incentive that has nothing to do with those motives, from stocking their freezers to just bragging about what they hunted. Let’s be for real here, you’re not scientists or veterinarians carefully monitoring and managing a population, what you’re doing is taking the first justification you can find for what you already wanted to do.
Killing animals isn’t ethical. Inevitably the false dilemma gets painted between killing them or overpopulation, but the overpopulation is also a human-created problem, both through overdevelopment and killing off natural predators - the actual antidote is to scale back our development, or reintroduce predators, or simply let other natural stressors manage the population. Plant-based/vegan diet is far more ethical (nonsense about “plants feel pain”, “mice killed by plows”, “I can’t eat vegan because of my blood type” and other vegan bingo card BS aside).
The way it’s written, it sounds like we could download it in the US, after the law was passed, for 180 days, and then do whatever we want with it. Unfortunately, after that point, the test of it being “developed” in China would probably be met for anything but a near-total rewrite.
That’s the idea
Works for me. With a little coaxing I got it to advocate non-violent system replacement too. I don’t think you’ll be able to get it to advocate violent overthrow though, no surprises there…
Zionism is the fascist movement within Judaism (although many Jews reject it being associated with Judaism at all). Being against Zionism is no more anti-Jewish than being against white supremacism is being “anti-white”. That’s how that actually works. Jumping to accuse anyone criticizing Zionism as being “antisemitic” is just a lazy, intellectually dishonest smear that everyone sees through, and you should stop polluting conversations with it.
House resolutions aren’t binding law. They may want to ban abortion, they may try in the next 4 years, but this is not what that is.
Sure, if you say so.
Oh, now it’s owned by the Chinese military?
Which part of “freedom of speech” involves precluding us from ingesting content from a country our government decided it doesn’t like? Or electing to send our own device data or interactions to that country?
That unanimous decision made it perfectly clear that the government knows something we don’t,
Yeah, they know who pays their checks.
My bet is on the genocide being much worse than even TikTok was showing,
TikTok showed them incinerating an entire civilization. Not sure what you saw on there.
If that were true then they wouldn’t have given ByteDance the option to sell 80% to citizens and continue operating.
Except the entire point of that is the U.S. ownership would succumb to that pressure.
Sidestep providing the evidence and go straight for the personal attack. Nice.
Bytedance’s long-term hope is naturally to be able to continuing operating everywhere without violating any laws. Right? Therefore, their strategy is to stay as compliant as possible with various national laws (within reason), right? Therefore they have to take a conservative reading of the bill (PAFACA). So let’s look at the text of the bill:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7521/text
(1) PROHIBITION OF FOREIGN ADVERSARY CONTROLLED APPLICATIONS.—It shall be unlawful for an entity to distribute, maintain, or update (or enable the distribution, maintenance, or updating of) a foreign adversary controlled application by carrying out, within the land or maritime borders of the United States, any of the following: […]
Now, the actual distribution of TikTok is done by a U.S. corp, incorporated in California and Delaware. That corp has to stay compliant with these laws. Therefore, to maintain or update or enable the distribution of an app as defined in this bill, is legally punishable. Make sense? Particularly because the law mentions them by name, there is basically zero legal defense against it besides contesting its constitutionality. Which the horrifically corrupt Supreme Court upheld.
So, probably the only way they felt comfortable resuming operations in the U.S. was with some kind of written agreement with the Trump admin - as of yet undisclosed.
Yeah, but the ban passed with overwhelming bipartisan support, randomly jammed inside of the global military spending package including funding the Ukrainian war effort and the genocide in Gaza (which is a must-support bill for Democrats and Republicans alike I guess).
IMO don’t link directly to “Times of Israel”, use an archiver link.
It’s not laymen, it’s a journalist. Their job is to accurately describe the truth.