3 ms·

Take a look at how they play with regards to chat control. The EU is just the same corrupt BS like D.C., only with a lot more virtue signaling.

jacquesm 2mo ago
Sorry, I don't agree with that. The amount of corruption in the USA right now is simply off the scale.
- sneak 2mo ago
  Nah, it’s just more visible. It’s not that much of a sea change. And it’s ridiculously naive to pretend that the major countries in Europe don’t have their own mechanisms to regularly and effectively bypass any democratic inconveniences when necessary. They regularly push through things that no constituent would ever want or vote for.
  - LastTrain 2mo ago
    Nah, it’s worse now than ever.
  - jacquesm 2mo ago
    You're right, just the other day our MP lined his pockets to the tune of a couple of billion, pumped his shitcoin, tipped off his friends about about the stock market movements he was going to cause, sent a couple of good deals to his kids and threatened war on a couple of countries just to please his buddies. And that's just the last couple of months... /s
    - FireBeyond 2mo ago
      Oh, and will sell you access to his market-moving tweets for $100K a month, so you know and can get your stock trades set before the plebes do.
  - FireBeyond 2mo ago
    Meanwhile the President sits in the Oval Office and says, in a televised interview, with absolutely no shame, that all of his kids and family are insider trading, all the time.
    - ffsm8 2mo ago
      Meanwhile in Germany insider trading is completely legal for politicians. Well, not insider trading - but it's definition supposedly doesn't extend beyond internal business information. (At least that's what people keep telling me, im not a lawyer)
      - dubbel 2mo ago
        Insider trading is it course not legal for politicians in Germany, as you could have found out without being a lawyer. That being said, transparency/reporting duties for members of parliament/ministers can and should definitely be improved.
        ffsm8 2mo ago
        The point was that the definition of insider trading does not extend to politicians buying/selling from their "insider knowledge" as it's not internal business knowledge. Hence it is legal (in Germany) for politicians to buy/sell right before passing laws which influence the valuation of companies. Which I may add: you could've easily found out yourself too if you looked up what I wrote.
        phatfish 2mo ago
        Which laws get passed under complete secrecy that politicians can trade based on? They are usually debated for months/years. Even if something is rushed through fast (like during COVID?) it is public knowledge. The issue in America is the president has more power to act unilaterally (maybe to address his/her own interests, maybe not) than any European politician.
        lxgr 2mo ago
  - Lio 2mo ago
    Trump just dropped the part of his lawsuit against the BBC where he claimed it damaged his business because he would have to expose what his business is. The Trump regime a way more corrupt than anything currently seen in Europe. He currently attempting to steal Greenland so he can strip it of mineral assets for fucks sack. No politician in Europe is starting wars for personal gain. Only Trump and Putin. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly5wyynv9zo https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly5wyynv9zo
    - nalekberov 2mo ago
      [flagged]
    - fragmede 2mo ago
      > No politician in Europe is starting wars for personal gain. Isn't that that basically the history of Europe? A short French or German or English or Roman dude starting a war for personal gain?
      - inigyou 2mo ago
        Not recently though. Unless you count Putin.
      - Lio 2mo ago
        That's the history of every country and every empire, not just Europe. Is that the standard we're holding Trump to though? Do you really think it's OK for him to invade other countries for personal enrichment because historic tyrants also did the same?
- drnick1 2mo ago
  It's not, you're just watching CNN too much.
  - usernomdeguerre 2mo ago
    or maybe you're watching Fox News too much?
sscaryterry 2mo ago
Not nearly the same thing. Trump and his family have made billions. I cannot say the same of von der Leyen.
- carlosjobim 2mo ago
  Which of those two leaders were elected by the people?
  - izacus 2mo ago
    Certainly Van Der Leyen. I suggest you show up for next EU election if you don't like the option.
    - krick 2mo ago
      Clearly you have no idea how the head of EC is chosen. Because of the two only Trump was actually elected by the people.
      - izacus 2mo ago
        Remember that Chat control has gone through vote through directly elected parliament like any other legislation. The next election is in 2029. I suggest you show up instead of spreading fabrications online.
        abc123abc123 2mo ago
        [flagged]
        hamper653 2mo ago
        > People are only allowed to vote on pre-defined options that are decided entirely in private That’s democracy in its purest form.
izacus 2mo ago
A parliamentary process where a law is being proposed, amended and voted upon isn't "corruption". Just because you disagree with a law, that doesn't make it "corruption" - it does make you an authoritarian that attacks democracy as soon as other people don't vote like you want.
- inigyou 2mo ago
  Chat control 1 was rejected by the parliament and then passed anyway because parliament doesn't matter. Hardly democratic.
  - izacus 2mo ago
    That's a lie - chat control was amended and then passed via parliament vote. Please stop spreading fabrications - even when you dislike the result. That's fascist behaviour.
    - inigyou 2mo ago
      The majority of parliamentarians voted against it. This was considered a pass, because it didn't meet some arbitrary threshold to block it.
      - izacus 2mo ago
        With 276 MEPs in favor. Vote them out in 2029 if you want to change that.
        inigyou 2mo ago
        And 314 voted against. "Chat control 1" is the deliberately misleading name for "Facebook is not banned from using CSAM scanners on your DMs if it wants to" - I don't think it's worth voting someone out based on that. The one that bans encryption is called "chat control 2". I assume they've both got the same name as part of a deception tactic.
inigyou 2mo ago
Chat control 1 or 2?
DavideNL 2mo ago
What you do is called "black-and-white thinking" : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splitting_(psychology)?useskin=vector https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splitting_(psychology)?useskin...

jacquesm 2mo ago

Sorry, I don't agree with that. The amount of corruption in the USA right now is simply off the scale.

sneak 2mo ago
Nah, it’s just more visible. It’s not that much of a sea change. And it’s ridiculously naive to pretend that the major countries in Europe don’t have their own mechanisms to regularly and effectively bypass any democratic inconveniences when necessary. They regularly push through things that no constituent would ever want or vote for.
- LastTrain 2mo ago
  Nah, it’s worse now than ever.
- jacquesm 2mo ago
  You're right, just the other day our MP lined his pockets to the tune of a couple of billion, pumped his shitcoin, tipped off his friends about about the stock market movements he was going to cause, sent a couple of good deals to his kids and threatened war on a couple of countries just to please his buddies. And that's just the last couple of months... /s
  - FireBeyond 2mo ago
    Oh, and will sell you access to his market-moving tweets for $100K a month, so you know and can get your stock trades set before the plebes do.
- FireBeyond 2mo ago
  Meanwhile the President sits in the Oval Office and says, in a televised interview, with absolutely no shame, that all of his kids and family are insider trading, all the time.
  - ffsm8 2mo ago
    Meanwhile in Germany insider trading is completely legal for politicians. Well, not insider trading - but it's definition supposedly doesn't extend beyond internal business information. (At least that's what people keep telling me, im not a lawyer)
    - dubbel 2mo ago
      Insider trading is it course not legal for politicians in Germany, as you could have found out without being a lawyer. That being said, transparency/reporting duties for members of parliament/ministers can and should definitely be improved.
      - ffsm8 2mo ago
        The point was that the definition of insider trading does not extend to politicians buying/selling from their "insider knowledge" as it's not internal business knowledge. Hence it is legal (in Germany) for politicians to buy/sell right before passing laws which influence the valuation of companies. Which I may add: you could've easily found out yourself too if you looked up what I wrote.
        phatfish 2mo ago
        Which laws get passed under complete secrecy that politicians can trade based on? They are usually debated for months/years. Even if something is rushed through fast (like during COVID?) it is public knowledge. The issue in America is the president has more power to act unilaterally (maybe to address his/her own interests, maybe not) than any European politician.
        lxgr 2mo ago
- Lio 2mo ago
  Trump just dropped the part of his lawsuit against the BBC where he claimed it damaged his business because he would have to expose what his business is. The Trump regime a way more corrupt than anything currently seen in Europe. He currently attempting to steal Greenland so he can strip it of mineral assets for fucks sack. No politician in Europe is starting wars for personal gain. Only Trump and Putin. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly5wyynv9zo https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly5wyynv9zo
  - nalekberov 2mo ago
    [flagged]
  - fragmede 2mo ago
    > No politician in Europe is starting wars for personal gain. Isn't that that basically the history of Europe? A short French or German or English or Roman dude starting a war for personal gain?
    - inigyou 2mo ago
      Not recently though. Unless you count Putin.
    - Lio 2mo ago
      That's the history of every country and every empire, not just Europe. Is that the standard we're holding Trump to though? Do you really think it's OK for him to invade other countries for personal enrichment because historic tyrants also did the same?
drnick1 2mo ago
It's not, you're just watching CNN too much.
- usernomdeguerre 2mo ago
  or maybe you're watching Fox News too much?

sscaryterry 2mo ago

Not nearly the same thing. Trump and his family have made billions. I cannot say the same of von der Leyen.

carlosjobim 2mo ago
Which of those two leaders were elected by the people?
- izacus 2mo ago
  Certainly Van Der Leyen. I suggest you show up for next EU election if you don't like the option.
  - krick 2mo ago
    Clearly you have no idea how the head of EC is chosen. Because of the two only Trump was actually elected by the people.
    - izacus 2mo ago
      Remember that Chat control has gone through vote through directly elected parliament like any other legislation. The next election is in 2029. I suggest you show up instead of spreading fabrications online.
      - abc123abc123 2mo ago
        [flagged]
        hamper653 2mo ago
        > People are only allowed to vote on pre-defined options that are decided entirely in private That’s democracy in its purest form.

izacus 2mo ago

A parliamentary process where a law is being proposed, amended and voted upon isn't "corruption". Just because you disagree with a law, that doesn't make it "corruption" - it does make you an authoritarian that attacks democracy as soon as other people don't vote like you want.

inigyou 2mo ago
Chat control 1 was rejected by the parliament and then passed anyway because parliament doesn't matter. Hardly democratic.
- izacus 2mo ago
  That's a lie - chat control was amended and then passed via parliament vote. Please stop spreading fabrications - even when you dislike the result. That's fascist behaviour.
  - inigyou 2mo ago
    The majority of parliamentarians voted against it. This was considered a pass, because it didn't meet some arbitrary threshold to block it.
    - izacus 2mo ago
      With 276 MEPs in favor. Vote them out in 2029 if you want to change that.
      - inigyou 2mo ago
        And 314 voted against. "Chat control 1" is the deliberately misleading name for "Facebook is not banned from using CSAM scanners on your DMs if it wants to" - I don't think it's worth voting someone out based on that. The one that bans encryption is called "chat control 2". I assume they've both got the same name as part of a deception tactic.

inigyou 2mo ago

Chat control 1 or 2?

DavideNL 2mo ago

What you do is called "black-and-white thinking" : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splitting_(psychology)?useskin=vector https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splitting_(psychology)?useskin...