7 ms·

It's not a far out conspiracy theory. TikTok was already going all in with Google Cloud as their tech partner (which is a more obvious choice than Oracle) and w

It's not a far out conspiracy theory. TikTok was already going all in with Google Cloud as their tech partner (which is a more obvious choice than Oracle) and was ready to go all in on with Google until Donald reiterated, publicly, his demand that the US "get a cut" of any deal. To Donald, the US "getting a cut" and his friends/himself profiting are likely synonymous. His personal interest and the national interest are the same, in his mind.

shripadk 6y ago
> TikTok was already going all in "All in": What is the guarantee that their entire infrastructure will be on Google Cloud? You are assuming a lot about how their backend infrastructure is structured. > was ready to go all in on with Google until Donald reiterated, publicly, his demand that the US "get a cut" of any deal Define "all in". For me, all in is when the entire company gets bought out by Google. > his friends/himself profiting are likely synonymous. His personal interest and the national interest are the same, in his mind. Again, unsubstantiated claims a.k.a conspiracy theory. The fact is that his net worth has actually fallen drastically: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-08-14/trump-s-net-worth-in-office-is-down-300-million-in-10-decline https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-08-14/trump-s-n... If his motive is enriching himself/friends that should reflect in his/friends net worth.
- xorcist 6y ago
  Far from a conspiracy theory, Larry Ellison has been very vocal in his support of Trump (and a major donor!), and Safra Catz actually served on the Trump transition team.
  - shripadk 6y ago
    > Far from a conspiracy theory, Larry Ellison has been very vocal in his support of Trump (and a major donor!), and Safra Catz actually served on the Trump transition team. I don't understand. Is being a donor automatically amount to corruption/illegal activity in the United States? I thought corporate donations to political parties were legal in the United States. If it is legal I don't see why the need to construct a conspiracy theory around it?
    - HenryBemis 6y ago
      European here: donor/lobbying imho is the legalized bribing in the USA. It is annoying some people when I phrase it like this, but hey, people who sit on a big chair tend to want to continue sitting on said chair. And donors' cash helps to that objective. So yes, I don't care if it's Larry or John, or pual, or Ringo, or George, if I pay you money to stay in power, and in exchange I get to benefit from that, you can call it what you want. I call it bribing/kickback/fraud/etc. Money went from person A to person B. Person B made a decision so only person A profitted. I see a pattern. Don't you?
      - shripadk 6y ago
        > legalized bribing in the USA Then that is how it is in the rest of the World. I don't see why USA should be held with a different set of standards when literally all elections fought in every part of the world works through donations (be it corporate or private citizens). Very few countries banned corporate donations and those who did actually made it even worse. Take Brazil for instance: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/12/here-s-what-happened-when-brazil-banned-corporate-donations-in-elections/ https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/12/here-s-what-happened-... Only the rich could contest elections (as they used their own money). People from lower/middle income strata hardly received any donations. Banning corporate donations doesn't stop corporates from influencing elections. Corporates can themselves fund and run campaigns on individual issues that concern them and mobilize support with clever messaging. > Money went from person A to person B. Person B made a decision so only person A profitted. I see a pattern. Don't you? Yes everyone can see a "pattern" but that doesn't amount to corruption. That amounts to just an allegation. An allegation needs to be established through some legal route where in it is concluded without shred of doubt that the office was misused for helping out someone. Either a money/document/wiretapping trail that can connect the two things. If you cannot establish it then it remains a "conspiracy theory". Nothing more.
        HenryBemis 6y ago
        Rich getting mega-rich, and poor remain in poverty. If that is an allegation, then I am a conspiracy freak (I am not). When we speak about USA and you bring Brazil in the discussion (whataboutism), you lower the bar. My "ideal" societies (progress, freedom, respect, and other such 'metrics') do NOT include Brazil, China, Iran, Russia, North Korea, Turkey. Brazil has selected as a ruler a former army general* who enjoys militarisation and is a fan of a dictatorship. I think the discussion ends here. Brazil may be doing 100 other things "good", but "showed that in 2010, about 6 percent of the Brazilian population lived in favelas and other slums" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Favela https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Favela). 6%? Seriously? I (-apologies for the bias-) prefer to hold in highest standards the EU, USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and a very few more. Although imperfect, still far better standard of Living than other countries/regiions. That said, my ideal society is a Star Trek (TNG) one, where everyone contributes how they can, in a balance matter, everyone has free healthcare, everyone has a food replicator and never goes hungry. *to avoid any misunderstanding, I am a honorable discharged army officer (of my country - NATO member), and I respect the Military-ies and what Military represents (protect the integrity of the land/sea/air)(and do NOT interfere in politics) Edit: Brazil is a corrupt nation. Perhaps if the haves start caring for the have-nots, and the poverty/inequality is reduced, education is improved, then in 10-20-30 years Brazil will be VERY different to what it is now. These things take time. Moving to a good direction won't take you there tomorrow.
xorcist 6y ago
The US getting a cut. Why is mercantilism suddenly mainstream again?
jariel 6y ago
This is definitely way out on a limb. That's too complicated, there is no way to know Larry would have ended up with the win like this. TikTok was banned for 2 reasons: 1) Users on TT ganged together to screw up Trump's GOP convention. This means a) raising vengeful ire of Trump and b) serious implications for material political intervention by a an outside entity. Even though I don't think for a second the CCP had anything to do with it, the risk is materai. 2) National Security Risk. This is not a joke, almost all Chinese companies have 'CCP party apparatus', within the company to make sure they are following the party line, and they will hand over data for whatever purpose at anytime. Imagine having every US politician, Academic, CEO, Investors social medial - that's a lot of compromised individuals and you could compromise the country very quickly. The reason TT should not be allowed even before 1 and 2 which are more controversial is simply trade - if foreign companies have to jump through hoops to play in China, those same hoops should be applied here tit-for-tat. Just on the basis of fair trade alone. FYI Trump's bit about 'taking a cut' is just laughable, I honestly think he doesn't understand what 'trade' is, it's like he cannot seem to differentiate between 'his personal business' and anything else. Just like he cannot fathom how nations interact with one another, and sees everything in very personal terms i.e. with Putin, Erdogan etc..

shripadk 6y ago

> TikTok was already going all in "All in": What is the guarantee that their entire infrastructure will be on Google Cloud? You are assuming a lot about how their backend infrastructure is structured. > was ready to go all in on with Google until Donald reiterated, publicly, his demand that the US "get a cut" of any deal Define "all in". For me, all in is when the entire company gets bought out by Google. > his friends/himself profiting are likely synonymous. His personal interest and the national interest are the same, in his mind. Again, unsubstantiated claims a.k.a conspiracy theory. The fact is that his net worth has actually fallen drastically: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-08-14/trump-s-net-worth-in-office-is-down-300-million-in-10-decline https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-08-14/trump-s-n... If his motive is enriching himself/friends that should reflect in his/friends net worth.

xorcist 6y ago
Far from a conspiracy theory, Larry Ellison has been very vocal in his support of Trump (and a major donor!), and Safra Catz actually served on the Trump transition team.
- shripadk 6y ago
  > Far from a conspiracy theory, Larry Ellison has been very vocal in his support of Trump (and a major donor!), and Safra Catz actually served on the Trump transition team. I don't understand. Is being a donor automatically amount to corruption/illegal activity in the United States? I thought corporate donations to political parties were legal in the United States. If it is legal I don't see why the need to construct a conspiracy theory around it?
  - HenryBemis 6y ago
    European here: donor/lobbying imho is the legalized bribing in the USA. It is annoying some people when I phrase it like this, but hey, people who sit on a big chair tend to want to continue sitting on said chair. And donors' cash helps to that objective. So yes, I don't care if it's Larry or John, or pual, or Ringo, or George, if I pay you money to stay in power, and in exchange I get to benefit from that, you can call it what you want. I call it bribing/kickback/fraud/etc. Money went from person A to person B. Person B made a decision so only person A profitted. I see a pattern. Don't you?
    - shripadk 6y ago
      > legalized bribing in the USA Then that is how it is in the rest of the World. I don't see why USA should be held with a different set of standards when literally all elections fought in every part of the world works through donations (be it corporate or private citizens). Very few countries banned corporate donations and those who did actually made it even worse. Take Brazil for instance: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/12/here-s-what-happened-when-brazil-banned-corporate-donations-in-elections/ https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/12/here-s-what-happened-... Only the rich could contest elections (as they used their own money). People from lower/middle income strata hardly received any donations. Banning corporate donations doesn't stop corporates from influencing elections. Corporates can themselves fund and run campaigns on individual issues that concern them and mobilize support with clever messaging. > Money went from person A to person B. Person B made a decision so only person A profitted. I see a pattern. Don't you? Yes everyone can see a "pattern" but that doesn't amount to corruption. That amounts to just an allegation. An allegation needs to be established through some legal route where in it is concluded without shred of doubt that the office was misused for helping out someone. Either a money/document/wiretapping trail that can connect the two things. If you cannot establish it then it remains a "conspiracy theory". Nothing more.
      - HenryBemis 6y ago
        Rich getting mega-rich, and poor remain in poverty. If that is an allegation, then I am a conspiracy freak (I am not). When we speak about USA and you bring Brazil in the discussion (whataboutism), you lower the bar. My "ideal" societies (progress, freedom, respect, and other such 'metrics') do NOT include Brazil, China, Iran, Russia, North Korea, Turkey. Brazil has selected as a ruler a former army general* who enjoys militarisation and is a fan of a dictatorship. I think the discussion ends here. Brazil may be doing 100 other things "good", but "showed that in 2010, about 6 percent of the Brazilian population lived in favelas and other slums" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Favela https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Favela). 6%? Seriously? I (-apologies for the bias-) prefer to hold in highest standards the EU, USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and a very few more. Although imperfect, still far better standard of Living than other countries/regiions. That said, my ideal society is a Star Trek (TNG) one, where everyone contributes how they can, in a balance matter, everyone has free healthcare, everyone has a food replicator and never goes hungry. *to avoid any misunderstanding, I am a honorable discharged army officer (of my country - NATO member), and I respect the Military-ies and what Military represents (protect the integrity of the land/sea/air)(and do NOT interfere in politics) Edit: Brazil is a corrupt nation. Perhaps if the haves start caring for the have-nots, and the poverty/inequality is reduced, education is improved, then in 10-20-30 years Brazil will be VERY different to what it is now. These things take time. Moving to a good direction won't take you there tomorrow.

xorcist 6y ago

The US getting a cut. Why is mercantilism suddenly mainstream again?

jariel 6y ago

This is definitely way out on a limb. That's too complicated, there is no way to know Larry would have ended up with the win like this. TikTok was banned for 2 reasons: 1) Users on TT ganged together to screw up Trump's GOP convention. This means a) raising vengeful ire of Trump and b) serious implications for material political intervention by a an outside entity. Even though I don't think for a second the CCP had anything to do with it, the risk is materai. 2) National Security Risk. This is not a joke, almost all Chinese companies have 'CCP party apparatus', within the company to make sure they are following the party line, and they will hand over data for whatever purpose at anytime. Imagine having every US politician, Academic, CEO, Investors social medial - that's a lot of compromised individuals and you could compromise the country very quickly. The reason TT should not be allowed even before 1 and 2 which are more controversial is simply trade - if foreign companies have to jump through hoops to play in China, those same hoops should be applied here tit-for-tat. Just on the basis of fair trade alone. FYI Trump's bit about 'taking a cut' is just laughable, I honestly think he doesn't understand what 'trade' is, it's like he cannot seem to differentiate between 'his personal business' and anything else. Just like he cannot fathom how nations interact with one another, and sees everything in very personal terms i.e. with Putin, Erdogan etc..