The Supreme Court rules on things like the chevron doctrine which allows the executive agencies to implement and enforce regulations across all industries. Does Harlan crowe do business in one of “all” industries? There is of course the topic of the article, citizens united which gave Crowe the ability to massively influence politics. Cases in the Supreme Court affect everyone in the country because it defines or redefines the law with every decision. To even begin the train of thought that a billionaire could be unaffected by _all previous supreme court opinions_ is just strange.
> the gift giver (Harlan Crowe) has not been involved in a Supreme Court case since Thomas was on it.
You are the one who suggested Harlan Crowe has no interest in the outcomes of any Supreme Court cases and that him giving undisclosed gifts to the justices in the millions of dollars range couldn’t therefore justify the need for a recusal.
Alternatively you could be honest and admit that the nature of these gifts being undisclosed coming from a person with inherent interest in almost every case is cause for major concern and probably ground for recusal from _every_ case. A Supreme Court justice should be extremely mindful of even the possible appearance or impression of unethical behavior as their unethical behavior serves to discredit the institution itself.
Why do you feel the need to come here and defend this plainly unethical behavior from justice thomas?
10th lowest winning margin in all of US history. Far from the picture you are trying to paint that most Americans are pro-trump. Most Americans either didn’t vote or voted against trump.
Trump called the Canadian prime minister a governor while threatening 100% tariffs and threatening to annex Greenland. The US government also did literally reach out to Albertan separatists.
The actions of the government you support and the supposed “consensus” you cite are opposed.
* focus locally; getting invoked with local politics by supporting local candidates with your time and effort - the state department runs programs to talk to city and state officials concerning foreign policy matters and city’s and local governments can create pressure on federal representatives from those states.
* vote with your wallet; boycotts and divestments are tools ordinary people have to effect conglomerates. Ensure your retirement money is not invested with companies engaging with the political ideas you do not agree with
* protest; attending in person events shows leaders numbers and images that are harder to ignore than their consultants’ polling data.
I've done all of those and while I think they are important i believe it's most important to let politicians know, otherwise they rely too much on money.
>have never heard of anything even remotely similar
And therein lies the problem. What the parent said is something the USA has practiced in dozens of countries. For just a single example, operation cyclone had the USA arming separatist militias to fight against the Soviet afghan government. You may be familiar with one of these militia members:
>the most well-known Arab financier and militant of the group during this period was Osama bin Laden, who would later found al-Qaeda and mastermind the September 11 attacks on the United States.
Historically it is correct, and the movie Rambo III even references to it (such movies are made with approval of US military).
Stuff like this happens all the time though. You give resources to the enemy of an enemy (temp. friend) and they may end up as your enemy with the demise of your common enemy. Ideal allies you have a lot in common with (shared values) which was true regarding Europe and USA last century.
Do you think the cost of evaluating replacements, agreeing on one, and switching all people and processes to this new tool would cost this startup more or less than 600$ this year? After how many years would that work break even at 600$/year?
I swag this work to take:
1 engineer 8 hours to honestly evaluate alternatives, their licenses, the likelihood they will move towards a similar model in the next ~3 years, number of stars on GitHub, etc
2+ engineers 2 hours to agree on the path forward
1 engineer 2 hours to implement to new solution
8 engineers 1 hour to switch to the new solution
1 engineer 1 hour to finalize the removal of the old solution
I’ll call it 24 hours of work total, how much are you paying your engineers? Let’s say an easy 100$/hr. At this rate, it would cost $2400 and take 4 years to break even on doing this work (assuming the new solution has feature parity at the old 12$/month rate)
If I was tailscale doing this math, I would bet your startup is not gunna do this work to migrate away from tailscale right now because of this price increase.
It would have been a valid criticism if it mentioned US aid to Ukraine (which is far larger), or aid to Egypt or the aid by maintaining military bases in South Korea, Japan, Europe. But nothing of that was mentioned, only the Jewish state. Hence it is a good ol' antisemitism.
As soon as we admit that humans are easily corrupted, the sooner we can stop finger pointing and start developing systems to mitigate the natural tendency toward corruption.
Isn’t that free market capitalism?
We assume everyone will act in their own best interest and that this results in the most efficient allocation of resources.
reply