Note: “Mo chara” is Irish for “my friend”

Yep this is “Trump’s Great Leap Forward” and we should start referring to it as such.

See, that’s bullshit because you can’t be outraged that Harvard admits foreigners but also pretend to not care about or be affected by Harvard at all.

This however highlights the fact that foreign students used to be a source of revenue for the USA. This is wealthy European money that was getting spent in America but now will likely be spent somewhere else.

This is also denying American Harvard business students the opportunity to establish lucrative connections with European money. You’ve heard of “it’s not what you know, it’s who you know”? Poor Harvard students on a full scholarship who plan on setting up their own business someday could have benefitted from being classmates with the future queen of Belgium.

My point being that even if you fully subscribe to “America first”, this is still a really dumb policy that’s shooting America in the foot. Foreign students studying in America were, by definition, bringing money into America. No longer.

What you consider proof and what I consider proof might be different, so do you have a link to show what, SPECIFICALLY, you’re talking about? I’m not saying you’re wrong I’m just saying I don’t believe stuff randos on the Internet tell me unless they have links so I can know what they know

And he always proudly points out that he himself has never been personally bankrupt. Somehow, the fact that he always manages to bankrupt his investors instead of himself was seen as a good reason why America should become his next big investor.

Buy fairtrade bananas; it’s relatively easy to switch

I have to wonder: if headlines didn’t specifically point out how this is a snub to Trump, would Trump even notice shit like this happening? Or understand its negative implications for him? Sometimes it feels like the news media is intentionally trying to get him riled up.

It’s been deleted so don’t blame lemmy

Tell me more!

Not all job creation is a net benefit to the public interest. Wars give lots of people jobs.

You may be interested in Community Land Trusts.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_land_trust

“Tankie” means “person who, in a confrontation between citizens and tanks, roots for the tanks”. It’s more a reference to a person’s underlying authoritarianism rather than communism per se. The main reason it’s conflated with communism/marxism is because capitalism has, conceptually, staked a claim to the protectorship of individualism, which is assumed to be desirable. And because this claim is unchallenged, anything which stands against capitalism is assumed to therefore be inherently authoritarian. There is some merit to this claim and these assumptions, but to what extent, I couldn’t say. I’m not that smart.

I think the implication is actually that there’s a marked dropoff of eligible young Russian men. To preserve a generation, Russia might soon need to use more North Koreans on the Ukrainian front, but that comes with its own problems and risks.

It’s weird that Putin’s avoiding peace negotiations, as he more than anyone needs to find a way to scale back the war effort before his hold on power begins to waver. I get that he needs to save face while doing so, but he’s not gonna get conditions more favorable than a Trump administration, so the clock is ticking.

China will help repopulate Russia. Forcibly.

Page 21 of the ruling:

First, the Enforcement Guidance contravenes Title VII’s plain text by expanding the scope of “sex” beyond the biological binary: male and female. Although Title VII defines “sex” to also include “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions,” §2000e(k), the Enforcement Guidance concludes that “sex” under Title VII "includes ‘pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions’ and sexual orientation and gender identity." Enforcement Guidance, §I(A)(5) (emphasis added). Notably, the Guidance uses quotation marks around “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions”—but not “sexual orientation” or “gender identity.” Because neither the plain text of Title VII nor Supreme Court precedent defines Title VII “sex” this broadly. Thus, the Enforcement Guidance lacks statutory or jurisprudential authority to expand Title VII’s definition of “sex” to include these new categories.

Interestingly, this also seems to provide a legal basis to discriminate against straight people and cis people. It’ll be interesting to see how Republicans attempt to close that extra loophole without also closing the loophole for discrimination against LGBTQ people.