4 ms·
I feel it premature on the data to offer any at all. Also inappropriate for me to explain because I don't want the role, nor to bias any. I am content with the
by keepamovin 5mo ago
I feel it premature on the data to offer any at all. Also inappropriate for me to explain because I don't want the role, nor to bias any. I am content with the mystery and will see what shows up. Re this latest "drop" - I am in the absorb and observe phase, analysis is only passive background, if at all, I think.
I'm grateful for the entertainment and the sense of "gov't doing something people want/revealing something they lied about" tho. Restores confidence in the big system. I'm really curious to see what comes next :)
- SilentM68 5mo ago[flagged]
- rmunn 5mo agoThe only reasons I can think of why your comment would have gotten downvoted is for ideological reasons, e.g. people dislike the president so they downvoted you for saying something even slightly positive about him. Since HN is not supposed to be used for ideological battle, that seems unfair. So have a counterbalancing upvote.
- matt_kantor 5mo agoAnother reason I can think of is simple disagreement about facts (or, relatedly, disliking the lack of sources/evidence in the comment). Like it or not, downvoting for mere disagreement is allowed here[0]. I personally think that any such downvotes should at least be accompanied by a reply, but I haven't been able to find official guidance about that. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16131314 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16131314
- dessimus 5mo agoOr more likely, using this as a distraction from failing military operations that were claimed to have been "won" repeatedly for 2 months, continued raising energy prices while campaigning he would lower them, and the Epstein files. But sure, he's being altruistic on this campaign promise.
- SilentM68 5mo agoI actually don't mind the downvoting so much. Everybody's entitled to their opinion. And that's just what I'm giving my humble "mumbling" opinion. I am not a socialist, because I've lived through and escaped the most common type of communist socialism as practiced in modern-day isolated banana republics. Those who habitually defend that kind of existence, usually tend to have some sort of monetary dealings with the regimes or have not experienced its negative benefits. For the most part, supporters of regimes typically visit as tourists, forbidden from visiting the sickening parts of that landscape. But I digress. With regards to foreign policy and why politicians do what they do, life is not black and white. There is always a reason behind everything whether you're a "Righty Tighty or Lefty Lucy". Since I'm being cast as a biased villain, I'll refer all my detractors to a more informed group of persons to provide more plausible reasons for the IRAN war: https://fb.watch/G-nbX_YMWq/ https://fb.watch/G-nbX_YMWq/ Former Presidents' Policies towards IRAN: https://fb.watch/G-oJWeu2nt/ https://fb.watch/G-oJWeu2nt/ I can't find the original interview, but I'm sure there is more to it than what is said in these small snippets. But basically, self-preservation and regional control of lands and resources are and always have been major reasons for conflict. It's a dog-eat-dog world, unfortunately. Perhaps things will change when AI ushers in the "Age of Abundance," which with my luck, will be after I'm dead :( Sol Roth: The Downvoted Man :)