Discussions
@ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...2yrs2Y
Much better
Better
Same
Worse
Much worse
Join in on more popular conversations.
@ISIDEWITH submitted…2wks2W
Jon Stewart criticized Democrats for repeatedly using Chuck Schumer as their spokesperson against Trump, calling his performances ineffective and monotonous.Stewart mocked Schumer's response to Trump's trade war threats, particularly his simplistic explanation about Mexican imports like Corona beer and avocados.The former Daily Show host expressed frustration at Schumer's basic observation that "guacamole is made of avocados" as a response to complex trade policy issues.Stewart sarcastically highlighted the Democrats' poor strategic choice in selecting Schumer to counter Trump, whom he described as "one of the most savvy presidential media manipulators in history."The comedian ridiculed Schumer's appearance and presentation style, particularly mocking his use of reading glasses positioned low on his nose.Stewart's criticism centered on the Democratic leadership's judgment in repeatedly choosing an "uninteresting" and "monotone" spokesperson.The commentary addressed Trump's threats of tariffs against Canada and Mexico, though focused more on the Democratic response than the policy itself.Stewart used hyperbole to emphasize his point, stating that Schumer's speaking makes him "want to bomb Canada."The piece highlighted the perceived disconnect between Democratic messaging strategy and effective opposition to Trump's policies.Stewart's criticism suggested a broader frustration with Democratic leadership's media strategy and public presentation.
▲ 4817 replies
@ISIDEWITH submitted…1wk1W
Governor Newsom signed legislation allocating $50 million total to protect California's policies from Trump administration challenges and defend immigrants facing deportation, split evenly between the state's DOJ and legal defense groups.The funding comes as California anticipates renewed conflicts with Trump's administration, following over 100 legal actions against his first term policies on issues including climate, water, and immigration.Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas justified the funding by characterizing the Trump administration as "out-of-control" and threatening to Californians' constitutional rights.The signing occurred just after Newsom's Washington visit to secure federal disaster aid for January's devastating Los Angeles wildfires, which claimed more than two dozen lives.California recently enacted a separate $2.5 billion fire relief package, with expectations of federal reimbursement for disaster response costs.Republican lawmakers criticized the legal defense funding as a political distraction from wildfire recovery efforts, with State Senate Minority Leader Brian Jones calling it a "slush fund."Critics raised concerns about the possibility of funds being used to defend immigrants with serious felony convictions, though Newsom indicated this wasn't the intended purpose.The legislation emerged from a special session Newsom called shortly after Trump's election in November, demonstrating California's proactive stance against anticipated federal challenges.During Trump's first term, California initiated more than 120 lawsuits against his administration, spending approximately $42 million on legal battles.Annual legal expenses fighting federal policies during Trump's first term ranged from $2 million to nearly $13 million per year.
▲ 1120 replies
@ISIDEWITH submitted…2 days2D
Reports emerged about a potential $400M State Department contract for armored Tesla Cybertrucks, which Elon Musk publicly denied on XThe government procurement document originally listed "Armored Tesla" in December, but was later changed to just "Armored Electric Vehicles"Musk, who spent over $250M supporting Trump's campaign, leads a government cost-cutting initiative called the Department of Government EfficiencyThe Cybertruck's stainless steel construction makes it potentially suitable for armoring, though the vehicle has faced recalls and modest salesArmormax, a Utah-based company, confirmed interest from the Trump administration in armoring Cybertrucks with bulletproof glass and other security featuresThe contract would be part of a larger State Department procurement forecast for 2025, with the total cost estimated between $100M-$500MCritics point out the potential conflict of interest, as Musk criticizes government spending while his companies have secured $13B in federal contractsTesla would not receive the full $400M, as some funds would go to armoring companies like ArmormaxThe Cybertruck has had limited commercial success, with only 39,000 units sold in 2023 at a starting price of $80,000The State Department plans to purchase other armored vehicles, including $40M worth of BMW SUVs
▲ 1015 replies
@ISIDEWITH asked…2yrs2Y
On February 24 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine in a major escalation of the Russo-Ukrainian War that began in 2014. The invasion caused Europe’s largest refugee crisis since World War II, with around 7.1 million Ukrainians fleeing the country and a third of the population displaced. It has also caused…
▲ 69.5k891 replies
@ISIDEWITH asked…13yrs13Y
On June 26, 2015 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the denial of marriage licenses violated the Due Process and the Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The ruling made same sex marriage legal in all 50 U.S. States.
▲ 320k11.9k replies
@ISIDEWITH submitted…1 day1D
China's blacklisting of PVH (Calvin Klein, Tommy Hilfiger) and Illumina marks the first time American companies with major Chinese operations have been targeted on national security grounds, signaling an escalation in trade tensions.The blacklisting came in response to Trump's imposition of additional 10% tariffs on Chinese imports, alongside Beijing launching an antitrust probe into Google.A record 30% of American Chamber of Commerce member companies were considering or already moving operations out of China, according to a recent survey.China's "unreliable entity list," introduced in 2020, mirrors the US "entity list" and could result in fines, trade bans, and restrictions on staff movement for targeted companies.PVH, which derives 6% of revenue and 16% of pre-interest/tax income from China, was specifically targeted over alleged "unreasonable boycotting" of Xinjiang cotton.The blacklisting's implications remain unclear, leaving approximately 1,000 PVH employees in China uncertain about their future.China's Commerce Ministry has declined to specify potential sanctions, stating only that companies operating with integrity have "nothing to worry about."The move contradicts China's public stance on wanting more foreign investment, creating increased uncertainty for multinational companies operating in the country.The blacklisting strategy appears selective, with China typically avoiding targeting market leaders to minimize domestic employment impact.US companies were already struggling to navigate rising Beijing-Washington tensions before this latest escalation in trade conflicts.
▲ 2011 replies
