ericmay

50 ms·

931.
by ericmay 7mo ago
I don't disagree with you, but just pushing back on this high-and-mighty "we let you be here" sensibility from the OP. For some reason folks seem to have become convinced the opposite way from MAGA that these bases only serve
932.
by ericmay 7mo ago
> USA soldiers were in those buildings because they'd been moved off-base. Source please. > You wouldn't know about that without the part about our people being the targets so I don't trust you to be forthcoming at all.
933.
by ericmay 7mo ago
Iran murdered at least 30,000 of its own civilians. This is verified by "non-evil" governments around the world.
934.
by ericmay 7mo ago
Ok I'm "spreading debunked Israeli lies" - they were only murdered, not raped and murdered. At least what the US did was an accident, unlike what Hamas did. What point are you trying to make here? We're talking about the
935.
by ericmay 7mo ago
> Either way "Iran might make nukes" is bad reason to start a war. I think we disagree here, but that's because I believe in nuclear non-proliferation. More countries have them, more likely they are to be used. If Iran get
936.
by ericmay 7mo ago
I don't think it's quite that simple. Of course you know the isolationist point of view goes many directions. If Russia wants to bomb Ukraine, whatever, that's Ukraine and Russia's problem, &c. (I believe in engageme
937.
by ericmay 7mo ago
What does the US have to do with what?
938.
by ericmay 7mo ago
Not an embellishment, though you are right that the tragedy alone proves my point. Anyway back to Iran - those are the bad guys. Their regime killed by many estimates 30,000 of their own people for peacefully protesting already. They'r
939.
by ericmay 7mo ago
If Iran hadn't funded and supplied Hamas who then attacked and killed how many people (how many were little girls who were murdered and raped by Hamas?) then Israel wouldn't have had to bomb Iran. You can go back and forth on wh
940.
by ericmay 7mo ago
> You mean like bombing a school and killing about 150 schoolgirls? Even Hamas knows western powers don’t do this on purpose - which is why they take up arms inside of civilian facilities. The Iranian people know the US doesn’t intention
941.
by ericmay 7mo ago
We can remove them and do the isolationist thing as many have been clamoring for. Then we have no need for bases in Europe or the Middle East. Gulf States can figure out how to live with a nuclear armed Iran or one that has a repository of
942.
by ericmay 7mo ago
> Our accelerating that doesn't seem like a big win so far. Maybe this can help. It's 2025 and Iran has 1,000 missiles (just random rough numbers). It's 2030, and Iran now has 5,000 missiles and bought a bunch of hypersoni
943.
by ericmay 7mo ago
I largely don't disagree with you, but at the same time had Trump asked they would have told him no anyway because Europe has little to no ability to help here and they're scared. As European prime ministers and officials have sai
944.
by ericmay 7mo ago
> And I can't see why they would stop supporting Russia with drones either. They also got to keep their enriched Uranium. I don't think I can name a single reasonable objective that US have achieved with this war. It's bee
945.
by ericmay 7mo ago
> A 401K is just an investment in indexes linked to your pension, there's nothing stopping everyone putting their own money into an index themselves This is mostly incorrect. A 401k in the United States is a tax-advantaged investmen
946.
by ericmay 7mo ago
Well, in part you are asking about the world economy . Most of the world doesn’t have 401k retirement vehicles, good access to financial markets, or the spare funds to save at all, whether it’s in stocks, bonds, or other investment vehicle
947.
by ericmay 7mo ago
> You're swapping a dependency which hits very quickly if disturbed, for one that would take a much longer time to manifest. That's not the entire point. You still rely on global supply chains. Those semiconductors in your MacB
948.
by ericmay 7mo ago
> A country that goes all in renewable is in a stronger position. Depends on the country. > UK power grid doesn't give a fuck about this war. Power grid =/= economy. You're missing the point. Rising prices affect the Un
949.
by ericmay 7mo ago
It doesn't though, it's the illusion of removing of a dependency which is rather dangerous. You're not only swapping one dependency for another in this specific case, but you're ignoring the rest of the global economy an
950.
by ericmay 7mo ago
Self-sufficiency is a myth. Even if you wanted to try and be energy independent, for the short and medium term (and maybe longer, who knows?) you will be dependent on China and all the baggage that they bring because of their dominance of r
951.
by ericmay 7mo ago
It's really strange too. I thought these settlements and 3rd party app stores would lower prices, but prices continue to go up! And now as prices are going up, Epic is also laying off workers? Hmmm.
952.
by ericmay 7mo ago
> China is creating and making markets where they are allowed to create/make markets. What's the median income in Africa, and how much is the cost of a new Chinese EV that is supposed to be sold in Africa? I'm not sure, do
953.
by ericmay 7mo ago
“Losing soft power” in this context is “US does something we disagree with”. It’s like my sitting here saying the EU is losing soft power by not taking on Iran and stopping their government from all the bad things they are doing. > No, i
954.
by ericmay 7mo ago
Plus if gas prices rise more people might switch to EVs, drive less often, and/or hopefully begin to understand the fragility of our car-only infrastructure and mandatory car ownership and demand better urban planning and transportatio
955.
by ericmay 7mo ago
Yea I think we got side-tracked here in discussing what is affordable. But my point was that the big 3 EV makers in the United States: Tesla, Lucid, Rivian are either politically uncompetitive (Tesla) or financially uncompetitive (all three
956.
by ericmay 7mo ago
Could you summarize your larger point? I'm starting to get lost in what exactly we're talking about - my fault.
957.
by ericmay 7mo ago
Sure, though I'm not positive that's a good economic strategy outside of perhaps SE Asia. Market size in places like Africa, along with general instability presenting challenges has not made it a great place to invest, unless of c
958.
by ericmay 7mo ago
A Honda CRV Hybrid for example starts at $35k (Accord Hybrid is 34k) and that's a pretty common vehicle here in Ohio. We could debate the capabilities and such and what you get for your money, but I'm just not in an agreement that
959.
by ericmay 7mo ago
There's nothing wrong with Chinese EVs (or any EVs) going to Nepal or something. China is closer, it's a tough country to get to, makes sense that China (or India perhaps) would be their primary supplier.
960.
by ericmay 7mo ago
> I didn't say they don't prop their carmaking, battery or ev industries. I said that I don't buy the argument it's bad for us. And I explained why it was bad for us. > Protectionism historically only helps industr

More ›