This statement is really weird, even for Trump because in the question asked immediately prior he clearly understands the question about whether he directed Bessant to intervene in the bond market stating.

"Not at all. No, he's a very capable man. He wanted to do it. He's very good at it. He is a good touch. Very good natural touch for the bonds and interest."

Right? He understands ehats beung spoken about, or his answer at least makes it sound like he does.

Then the reporter mentions that yields came back up and asks if Trump was going to direct Bessant to do "some other type of intervention". At this point Trump suggests military intervention.

He goes from "Bond market intervention" -> "Interest rates" (reasonable) to "Intervention" -> "I might direct the military to attack the bond market" (deranged) in, like 10 seconds. Is he just playing word association? Is he fucking with the reporter?

But he... wasn't. He lost the presidency in 1932 to Paul Von Hindenburg (53% to 37%. not even particularly close) who later appointed Hitler under pressure to the channclorship (which was an appointed role) in 1933. Hindenburg died in January of 1934 and Hitler de facto merged the presidency and chancelorship into one office (Fuhrer). The story isn't "regular people put Hitler in power", it's "broken legislative systems are vulnerable to facists".

So if throwing paint at a entierly replaceable cover for a dusty old painting is too far gone to be acceptable, what action can we take to stop oil production? Like. It needs to stop. To continue producing fossil fuels is a death cult. It needs to stop, like, a decade ago. I ask genuinely, how is this too far, and what is an acceptable response to an existential threat?

edit: On the off chance someone reads this so long after the post, I just want to point out that nobody actually engaged with my question here.

Imagine swearing fealty to a monarch in 2024.

This is a weird meme. The Democrats actively tried to court suburban white voters and other traditionally right-Leaning demographics. They tried to peel Republicans off. The democrats never offered socialists a cup labeled "liberalism", they offered "moderate republicans" a cup labeled "Border Control and Bush era political icons" and they said "Bro. I already told you I will only ever vote for Republicans".

Just a funny story, but, I use an Ubuntu laptop as my work computer as a teacher, and once, while I was helping another student with work, a student opened my laptop and began trying to install Roblox. She got far enough to figure out it wouldn't work, and started searching for how to install it. When I came over she was trying to figure out how to set up Wine. She got pretty close to getting it working before I came over. I was secretly pretty impressed with how fast she figured it out. It couldn't have been more than a few minutes.

But it doesn't say "it can generate too much energy and damage infrastructure", they said "it can drive the price down". The words they chose aren't, like, an accident waiting for someone to explain post-hoc. Like, absolutely we need storage for exactly the reason you say, but they are directly saying the issue is driving the price down, which is only an issue if your not able to imagine a way to create this infrastructure without profit motive.

Damn. Labor really wants to lose that election to Farage. Good luck to Corbyn and Sultana, I guess.

As much as I hate to admit it, Newsom has the right plan here. Democrats in power need to erect as many institutional barriers to Trump implementing his own policy, and doing it at the State level disrupts their route of attack significantly. The danger is that shielding blue state Republicans from the worst effects of Trump's economic policy might erode their potential support base, but they have to either take the risk, or carve out exceptions to their own policy that disproportionatly allow blue state Republicans to feel the sting (maybe, for instance, avoiding protections for small businesses). I doubt Democrats have the stomach for the latter option, so Newsom is making the correct play, and others should follow suit.

When toxic "econimistism" comes home to roost. A "strong economy" as measured by stock markets and company profits, both owned primarily by the extremely wealthy is not the same as "working class people are doing well economically", which is what should be meant by "a strong economy" if it were not for the neoliberal brain rot.

"Yeah. I really do want a big salty lugee in my mouth" ~ Oyster Enjoyers

Hey! It's the part where the "centrists" betray the left and cede power to the facists! Damn. You'd think someone would write a new script or something.

Call him daddy again, Rutte.

If I, as a teacher, responded to a less-than-compliant, and upset student by even lightly putting my hand on them I would be fired and charged that day. Police, if we are going to have them at all, need to be able to handle this kind of situation without resorting to violence. Period.

If she's banned from running it will be the first instance of a western liberal country reacting appropriately to the resurgence of fascism. Good on France.

So you're saying that thorn guy might be on to somthing?

I suspect the idea that there's a "backsies" button that can be pressed is delusonal. Whatever comes after Trump will not be the neoliberal realism that occupied the 25 years prior to him. I strongly suspect that the idiocy of Trump's era will give way to less incompetent right wing populism in the west in the 2030s... Maybe that's what they're banking on tho...

Can we get our customer service off of "X former know as Twitter" too while we're at it?

Damn. And these bitches are charging me 12 dollars a lb for ham?

Good to hear. Now I'm confident that the US definitely won't succumb to mission creep and get sucked into an interminable war that will end countless thousands of lives.