I guarantee this will be the case, as it's been the case every election since forever including 2020 when liberals were fear-mongering (like they always do) when they were out of power.
> Nor any techie lose their minds when someone without a security clearance gets access to sensitive national networks.
There's something peculiar about how liberals are now so offended by "security" when the federal government has showed complete incompetence over the past decade or even more.
All the security clearance data was leaked from federal servers. What else do we have to lose. Never mind that countless federal employees see your social security info. It's regularly fraudulently submitted by illegal foreigners too.
None of the criticisms I've seen from you or others are alarming.
What was alarming was watching Biden for 4 years completely non compos mentis and a media filled with liberals who would censor and ridicule ANY mention of this obvious fact. That's the GRAVEST national security threat, everything else PALES in comparison, and not a peep from the people who lit their entire political capital on fire over the ridiculous patently-false charades to never admit fault.
> Ruining H1B prospects for many deserving candidates
H1B shouldn't exist, there is no shortage of domestic talent for what amounts to standard office work. The sort of things I've seen done by H1B is nothing short of appallingly bad which makes this whole debate all the more infuriating.
I know you're trying to defend the indefensible but the Doctor of Law from Yale held a gun to a prostitute's head while smoking meth, and RECORDED IT.
He also sold his laptop full of incriminating evidence to a pawnshop.
Again, what does a depraved criminal drug addict have to offer to a Ukranian petroleum company? Well, he happens to be the vice president's son. Clear cut political corruption!
I think any intelligent person would rather hire Daniel Penny.
I would also group in "mis/disinformation" because it's such a clumsy phrase and people will often say both making it an even larger often-repeated verbal monstrosity.
It's interesting because, for me at least, there's an aesthetic quality to these phrases that is unmistakable.
> He’s been hired because of who he is rather than the skills he brings.
Were you calling Hunter Biden to account for his skills when it was revealed he made millions of dollars from Burisma in a role he ostensibly had no qualification?
> If instead we have an inflation, and so you have a disincentive to leave the cash under your pillow, you invest it (give to that company to fund its factory). That’s good for society.
There's a lot of "ifs" here with little evidence they're true or necessary.
Without examining all of the "ifs" let me just characterize the argument as fundamentally pro-corporation. I think it's better for society that corporations justify the money invested in them rather than artificially structuring the money such that people are forced to hand their money over to corporations as a form of wealth preservation because Paul Krugman said we'd have a Great Depression otherwise.
There's a shortage of air traffic controllers, and DEI policies have bungled hiring in the effort to constrain as much hiring as possible into minorities across practically every corporation.
That’s a funny phrase and one that I think deserves ridicule.
Society should value savings, in fact historically prosperity is the result of savings and every fall from prosperity is accompanied by artificially low interest rates and low saving rates.
I don’t see how people would differentiate savings from hoarding when infinite compound debasement is supposedly the “smart” policy.
To be clear, I think people that say "hoarding" is bad, really mean to say that they think "saving" is bad and that they should identify as champions of consumerism.