We really need to go back to before 1913, the year the Federal Reserve and the income tax were created. Abolishing those two things would solve a lot of our problems.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple CEO Tim Cook Donating $1 Million to Trump's Inaugural Fund
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That's true. And today many are getting many somethings they don't deserve. And we are footing the bill. "We" meaning those who may actually care about this and not blindly support everything. It's irony in this thread reeks of cognitive dissonance.
Do you have some citation, other than a YouTube video, that "this was framed in such an inflammatory way that it is probably separated from the facts"?
".....Unfortunately we've forgotten this and we ignore our founding principles. Today there are virtually no limits on what the government can do, which is why we are $36T in debt and are suffering the consequences of it...."
I think I agree.
I think, the problem in the US concentrate on a couple of basic principles;
- (only) 2 serious parties to vote for. I do not specifically advocate a system where 20 or so parties are active to choose from, but at least there' s more choice and, more importantly, those parties almost always have to work together to get a majority of votes (the chance of 1 being big enough to rule all others, is almost non existent). In my country I had to choose between 26 parties (!). Yes, a lot (maybe too many, but I still prefer this to a 2 party choice; I had to think!).
- The system of "electors" (don't know if this is the right word for it), where it is possible for someone to have more counted votes and still loose the elections.
- (there are more, but I'll not mention these)
Last edited:
Ranked Choice Voting would solve so much
Which is why it's fought against by those currently with power (bi-partisan)
I think few are getting a lot of things they don't deserve...in that tiny group, there's probably a majority of the new administration in the US.
And yes, YOU are footing the bill!
Cognitive dissonance?
Last edited:
Yeah, but between you and me, I wasn't the one telling other people to go do more research. The majority of the American people don't trust the media any more and for good reason.
The problem I have is that instead of trusting media, too many are now pivoting to "xyz podcaster" or "tiktok person XYZ" ... and even worse, whatever deep black hole of awful the YouTube algorithm leads them into*
It's like .. that's not better folks ...
You aren't getting the "real scoop"
You're getting brain droppings from a random and subjectivly useful cadre of folks blowing into a microphone
* I didn't fully understand how bad the YT algorithm issue is until helping an older relative with their YT account last week. They are someone who just clicks on stuff and leaves auto-play on and I couldn't believe the amount of wildly misinformative videos that were being suggested. It was nearly all totally inaccurate clickbait
I'm not even joking -- some of it should have been illegal to even present
There were thumbnails of what looked like child porn, endless videos of "people who died" (who are alive still), nazi stuff, flat earth BS, 9/11 denialism, conspiracies about seemingly everything .. on and on ... it was just one horrific thing after another
I personally use and enjoy YouTube, but you could convince me they should be shut down permanently based upon allowing that algorithm to run wild
Last edited:
What law requires maximising profits? Indeed, how would any court judge where profits were maximised?
It’s called political extortion.
Trump is a grifter, that will never change.
Trump is a grifter, that will never change.
There are estimates in EV circles that if we went green we would save xxx thousands life per year from cancer and what not due to pollution. We'd reduce our medical bills as well.
Does that mean oil company execs are murdering people? That's exactly how that post was stupidly framed.
There is no law that requires maximizing profits per se. However, courts commonly apply the rule of shareholder primacy, which holds that directors and executives should prioritize the interests of shareholders over those of other stakeholders. This principle has been used to infer a duty to provide a return to shareholders, as the court ruled in the eBay Domestic Holdings, Inc. v. Newmark that I cited. But, since there is no law specifically requiring a return, courts do allow directors to act on the concerns of other stakeholders as long as the actions can be shown to be in the long-term interests of the corporation.
In the Craigslist case, the court didn't rule that Craigslist founders breached their fiduciary responsibility by failing to maximize profits. It ruled they were in error for refusal to pursue profits.
A court is unlikely to hold directors liable for failing to maximize profit, provided the directors can demonstrate they acted reasonably in pursuing shareholder interests. Courts grant boards of directors and executives broad discretion in making business decisions and typically avoid second-guessing errors in judgment or subjective opinions. This discretion is protected by a legal principle known as the business judgment rule. Under this rule, courts will side with the directors as long as their decisions were made in good faith, based on sufficient information and rational analysis, and with the genuine belief that they were acting in the best interests of the company.
Last edited:
I'm not sure it would solve much. It might make for different problems. But it at least has the potential to make for a more diverse set of choices.
Nevada had ranked-choice voting on the ballot last November. The ads against it were both funny and sad. The main arguments were 1) voters would have to learn about too many candidates, and 2) it's difficult and confusing. In other words, voters are too stupid to exercise their franchise responsibly and would get confused if the choice wasn't simply R vs. D. Sadly, the initiative was defeated because both parties were mobilized against it.
He was speaking about "both sides" of the debate about whether to remove statues of confederate generals. He specifically excluded neo-nazis.
Is it safe to come out yet? I heard screaming, again. That poor woman from 2017 didn't age well!
Oh, but there most certainly is!
This is a comical take.
I am not claiming politics is free from corruption, in fact I would say exactly the opposite, corruption in government has been around since the concept of government was formed. Where TDS comes into play, is the blind criticism of anything coming from only one side of the fence.
What about a president that:
- Wouldn't acknowledge his own grandchild.
- Was very clearly mentally diminished but propped up by everyone from his family, close circle, administration, party and the whole of legacy media.
- Repeatedly told stories that never happened but claimed them as fact.
- Has an addict son who was on the board of a foreign energy company why? Was it his expertise with prostitutes or crack that qualified him for that position? His father is a much more likely qualification.
- Remember 10% for the "big guy"?
- Who led an administration that blatantly conspired with legacy and social media companies to crush any story that had the potential to damage his administration or stray from its narratives. The HB laptop story tops the list. Lab leak theory. Mask effectiveness, etc.
- Lost a prior attempt to run for president because of plagiarism.
- The list goes on, and on, and on, and on.
I couldn't disagree more and I couldn't value or trust the legacy media less. Independent media is where its at.
The legacy media are tied to their corporate masters, ever wonder why almost all advertising during news programs comes from pharmaceutical companies?
I am not suggesting Tik-tok idiots but podcasts can be great, where else can you hear a politician speak for up to 3 hours instead of narrative supporting, heavily edited, sound bites. Another fine choice are independently supported news folks such as the ones found on Substack or their own outlets, Breaking Points stands out for me.
Last edited:
Actually, it is. It is the be-all-end-all principle for publicly traded companies. Companies engage in behaviors that might seem altruistic to you on their face because implicitly those behaviors are also in shareholders' long-term best interests. It's not profit-reducing benevolence. A Board of Directors has 3 duties — duty of care, duty of loyalty, and duty of obedience — but they all roll up as principles supporting fiduciary duty.
Pretty much any argument you might make about "well they have to do X," if accurate, will have some relationship to fiduciary duty. It's axiomatic. It's the number 1 difference between publicly traded companies and private ones. Reasonable people can and do debate whether individual actions are in the company's best interests, but that's inherently in the gray area. Not every business decision gets run through an NPV analysis. Most, in fact, aren't. And that's where executives come in. They are empowered — and paid — to exercise their judgment.
"Blatant falsehoods with this claim of legality."
Fascinating. Please point us to the statute or case law stating or even suggesting that donations to inaugural committees are considered "bribes" and thus illegal. Take your time. I'll wait!
Also, of course there's no law requiring employees to spend their own money on donations or contributions. Don't be silly. No one suggested that there is. I certainly did not. It's rather ironic that it's you who clearly didn't read what I wrote. I'll refer you back to the second paragraph of my Friday afternoon post.
Um. There's no burden of "proof" for each and every individual decision. That's not how it works. If it did, can you imagine how much the courts would be jammed? That would of course be insane. Fortunately, as I said, it doesn't work out that way. A lawsuit about this would be laughably tossed out extremely early on in the process. Because this isn't new, and it's just the way things work out in the real world.
Just because you don't like it doesn't make it a big deal.
How does trump hate gay people? Prove that. What laws did he pass the last time he was in office that was at all homophobic ?
Smart man. He’s going to be in a difficult spot when the China tariffs affect future iPhone releases and by doing things like this I’m sure it will put him in Trump’s good graces to the point of being granted an exception from the new rules.
All the people bitching and groveling in these comments prove what we now know about politics and business at the highest level: they play 4-D chess while we play checkers. Congratulations to all of you and your respective “teams” to which you’ve chosen to pledge your unwavering allegiance. I’m sure the elitists you serve are thrilled to see how you’re helping things continue exactly as planned.
All the people bitching and groveling in these comments prove what we now know about politics and business at the highest level: they play 4-D chess while we play checkers. Congratulations to all of you and your respective “teams” to which you’ve chosen to pledge your unwavering allegiance. I’m sure the elitists you serve are thrilled to see how you’re helping things continue exactly as planned.
When someone argues that a candidate is unfit for a particular reason, pointing to a defect in the other side is exactly whataboutism. You can dress it up as a "reminder" and think you've justified it, but it is what it is. As the old saying goes two wrongs don't make a right.
Trump is a grifter and a convicted felon. That is true and isn't changed even if there were a dungeon in a pizza parlor visited by Hillary Clinton. One person's faults, real or perceived, do not whitewash the faults of another.
If that is all you have to say, you have proven my point, thanks.
I haven't proven your point. I've pointed out that your response was exactly whataboutism. I also pointed out that a person is to be judged on their own actions, and not be excused because the actions of someone else were also reprehensible.