Chad Gilmartin, a Justice Department spokesperson, said the “website was updated after a technical error where one of the signatures President Trump personally signed was mistakenly uploaded multiple times due to staffing issues caused by the Democrat shutdown.”
Too funny. Not only is nothing republicans’ fault, even when they are totally in control of a situation, but it must also be the fault of democrats.
Happiness is value, and value must only be captured by the IP holder.
Yes, all well and good, and upvoted for the rational response of course.
I understand there are standards. But the enemy of the good is the perfect, and if journalistic standards require perfect evidence and won’t otherwise represent the best-fit explanation, then they are easily exploited by bad actors like Trump who will intentionally withhold perfect evidence. The public good is served by reporting from a reasonable person’s perspective what the most likely explanation is, including the terminology that goes with it. Here, that is a “lie.”
I’d also argue their concern in this case isn’t standards, but legal liability for defamation. At least from a legal perspective, reporters and publications have clear defenses at this point to saying “lie” since regardless of subjective momentary intent, the preponderance of people / jurors should accept contextual evidence of intent like his prior statements.
And even journalistic standards should be addressable by calling it something like an “apparent” lie to allow the possibility of other explanations, while still calling it what it almost certainly is.
I mean, let’s just sit back and observe the stupidly obvious fact that Trump is lowering tariffs to lower grocery store prices, which necessarily confirms Trump knows that creating tariffs raised the grocery store prices, despite that he has said the exact opposite.
So tell me, mainstream media: Did we do it? Did we catch Trump in a lie so logically incontestable that your reporters would feel empowered to finally report it as a “lie”?
[Scans article]
…sigh.
Ooooh, update just dropped!
But that’s…the live action movie?
The issue isn’t about ownership, per se. It’s about acquisition of principle value which you carry with you when you sell the house.
The example halfway down the post of a $400K loan fixed at 6% is a good example: A 15-year loan would have a $3,375.74 monthly payment but pay off $305,364 principle after 12 years. A 30-year would have a $2,398.20 monthly payment, but have only $134,978 paid off. A 50-year has a $2,063.74 payment only pays off $66,251 principle.
This is why it’s a particularly bad debt trap. The 15 or 30-year mortgage allows the homeowner to move and have acquired significant principle value, which makes the costs of moving much lower.
And the monthly payment in substance are costlier when you add “interest” (rent into a black hole) and lower “principle” (long-term loan to the bank which is repaid back at sale). When the house is sold, the principle value returns to the seller via the sale and remaining loan payoff. So when you are paying off, say, $1,000 a month, if $600 is principle and $400 is interest, your true (final, after-the-sale-returns-principle-to-you) payment is $400. If you lower the total to $900 a month, but it breaks down as $400 principle and $500 interest, the true payment is $500.
So again, debt trap.
4 cats? In this economy?
The ICP group is anti-Trump and as silly as the ICP aesthetic is, juggalos seem like generally a positive community. They just want to get high and make friends. They are basically hippies in face paint.
So yeah, I get the connection but seems like this is doing them dirty.
I think the commenter’s point was that the 2025 elections show that voters want to elect people who stand up to Trump.
He is a malignant narcissist. He wants people to admire him, but doesn’t actually see them as people with rights or have the slightest actual sympathy or empathy. Thus he’s incapable of acting altruistically because everything he does is to elevate himself, and altruism requires an act of selflessness.
This is no different, because it’s meant to get people taking about how generous he is. He’s using public money to buy one-directional love.
I’m using “own” to mean “take ownership of,” “take responsibility for,” or here most expressly, “take blame for.”
Yeah, no, I meant “democrats.” The reason why I think democrats will “own” the shutdown is that they gained nothing of value, and contradicted themselves by defecting without getting what they said they were fighting for.
If they had just held the line and trusted opinion polling that said people were blaming republicans for this, republicans would have had to own it. Now, democrats look like the ones who wouldn’t compromise for 40 days but eventually were forced to.
As secondary effects, there are also two negative narratives democrats created: (a) what they were fighting for wasn’t that important (so democrats are at fault for shutting down the government for something unimportant), or (b) what they were fighting for was important and they folded without getting it (so democrats are at fault for being feckless or incompetent). There’s a strong likelihood one or both of these will take hold and undermine democrats’ positions further leading to December.
“Capitulating” usually infers a loss of sorts. The democrats folding indicates that they are the opposite of “in control” of anything.
The entire PR battle was about who was responsible for the shutdown, when either side could have had defectors and ended it in the other side’s favor. But the outcome contextualizes the battle retroactively. Here, the outcome was that democrats “won” at best status quo from before the shutdown, which is just objectively a loss since we had 40 days of pain until then. Further, the public impression will likely be that the shutdown was pointless if nothing of value was actually gained, all while democrats shine a spotlight on their part in this. Democrats defected, so that is a “capitulation” which is a loss plus volition. Really confused what is controversial about those statements, let me know.
But also, “technical” leverage? That sounds like some bs. Like “potential” leverage.
“Technical” in the sense that yes, you can say they have leverage, while in substance, no, they do not have leverage. “Superficial” leverage work better? “Illusory” leverage?
There is absolutely no reason to think a December vote will be any different, while they also gave up the actual leverage (the republican-damaging PR effect of this shutdown) and will start in December in a materially worse negotiating position because of that. I think the meaning is clear, but let me know if not.
They’re going to write a letter that will not be ignored this time!
DDR4 too, as they phase it out. I bought 2x32GB of DDR4 for my older system 8 months ago for $80. Now a deal for 32GB is $90-100.
The deal says “You have to put the ACA subsidies to a vote by December. In return, we’ll fund the government until January.”
So they’re not giving up their leverage, because if the Republicans fuck around the Dems can just slam the brakes on again right away
Except that in the public’s eyes, Democrats probably now own the current shutdown, thanks to the Democrats’ capitulation which makes the whole things look both pointless and in Democrats’ control.
So in January, there’s going to be even greater pressure and blame on Democrats if they don’t agree to the same Republican demand. Knowing our Democratic leaders have spines made of gently chilled consomme, the same things will play out faster.
And this only emboldens Republicans. They have always believed Democrats would fold. There are decades of history behind this belief and now they have reliable evidence this specific Senate and this specific issue is no different.
So Democrats just gave up all practical leverage, even if they have technical leverage.
I believe they’ll have a vote in the Senate. And I believe even if it passes, Republicans only agreed to it after confirming Johnson won’t even hold a vote in the House.
Isn’t the second best time 2999 years ago?