3 ms·

Expecting an onslaught of cash as some permanent way of being, especially given the fickleness (and fragility) of any state let alone political regime is an inc

by kev009 1mo ago

Expecting an onslaught of cash as some permanent way of being, especially given the fickleness (and fragility) of any state let alone political regime is an incredibly daft move. I don't care if it's Europe or Israel or Bangladesh, all this is ultimately graft that comes back to bite the people taxed and sent to wars to enable it. You make an adjacent comment that insinuates the US economy is basically bunk, which means the free lunch is over anyway.

esalman 1mo ago
So it's a problem when a poverty striken nation expect aid to combat child mortality, but shelling out $150m on Juicero or $500m on Theranos is fine? Please try to answer without sounding like a psychopath.
- kev009 1mo ago
  Whatever point you are trying to make is not coming across, what even are these numbers and what do they have to do with citizenry of the United States? You also have a quantum view of the United States that it is and isn't impoverished, so it's supposed to liquidate to fund some other foreign entity that is not rate paying? I'm dizzy.
  - esalman 1mo ago
    It's probably not coming across because you're looking up too many synonyms.
    - kev009 1mo ago
      "Looking up synonyms" huh? You have yet to make a coherent argument and keep trying to attack the messenger, typical behavior when people get called out for false entitlement. Your "psychopathy" accusations are pure cowardice.
      - wonnage 1mo ago
        Go ahead and explain why you decided to use “quantum” and “liquidate” then bro
        kev009 1mo ago
        Fluency in one's native language, what an achievement. Neither of these words are complicated. The treasury is unsalable bonds according to the thread, which means the US is in a financial collapse, but also has unlimited capacity to support someone's special interests abroad. Master logicians at work here.
        deleted 1mo ago
        [deleted]
    - llbbdd 1mo ago
      Are you struggling to read their extremely simple English? Confusing remark.

by kev009 1mo ago

esalman 1mo ago

So it's a problem when a poverty striken nation expect aid to combat child mortality, but shelling out $150m on Juicero or $500m on Theranos is fine? Please try to answer without sounding like a psychopath.

kev009 1mo ago
Whatever point you are trying to make is not coming across, what even are these numbers and what do they have to do with citizenry of the United States? You also have a quantum view of the United States that it is and isn't impoverished, so it's supposed to liquidate to fund some other foreign entity that is not rate paying? I'm dizzy.
- esalman 1mo ago
  It's probably not coming across because you're looking up too many synonyms.
  - kev009 1mo ago
    "Looking up synonyms" huh? You have yet to make a coherent argument and keep trying to attack the messenger, typical behavior when people get called out for false entitlement. Your "psychopathy" accusations are pure cowardice.
    - wonnage 1mo ago
      Go ahead and explain why you decided to use “quantum” and “liquidate” then bro
      - kev009 1mo ago
        Fluency in one's native language, what an achievement. Neither of these words are complicated. The treasury is unsalable bonds according to the thread, which means the US is in a financial collapse, but also has unlimited capacity to support someone's special interests abroad. Master logicians at work here.
        deleted 1mo ago
        [deleted]
  - llbbdd 1mo ago
    Are you struggling to read their extremely simple English? Confusing remark.