Not even the "war" on drugs or "war" on terror? Semantic games aside, the precedent for the president engaging in military action without congress declaring war was broken decades before Trump.
I love me a good Tu Quoque defense. Keep em coming! I can't remember if we supported him cuz he wasn't the war candidate or we supported him cuz he was or if it even matters and we just make up bullshit excuses for what suits us at the time with whatever is convenient for the given argument...
Everyone talks about stopping drugs entering the border but no one talks about dismantling the extremely efficient logistic network that makes those drugs available in every corner of each major city.
I guess it’s easier to blow up random boats in the pacific than prosecuting corrupt officials but is it effective?
I would say it's as American as it gets, and in this case justified as well. Do you not know America's history..? Even recent one? Obama ordered drone strikes in foreign countries as well.
I guess I can safely say why wouldn't they be propaganda, too? Seems easy to do "number go up" on a chart, and have a few experts do some scaremongering at the same time.
Perhaps this is more a move about hiring disillusioned talent who want to work on AI at Apple, but are never given the opportunity because liquid glass and Craig Federighi.
It doesn't say "EU regulations to look forward to", this isn't a hype article. Us who actually work in tech in relation to EU markets need to stay up to date on what regulations are introduced so that we can make sure to be in compliance.
Anytime the EU comes up, I'm reminded that this is still a forum on a very ambitious US startup accelerator who sees public safeguards as obstructions to their own million dollar idea.
If your idea can't success without being a parasite to your customers, maybe the business doesn't deserve to exist.
> We are not the kind of people who stand on ideological soapboxes and discuss the state of regulation.
You're soapboxing right now.
My point was about public perception of regulation. And that people do view EU regulation as impacting their tech products in ways similar to product announcements. Not the merits or lack thereof of the EU.
If it were that simple, Vanguard wouldn't have taken the additional step to prevent trading in these products on their brokerage. Telling customers "you can't buy Bitcoin because we can't sell it to you at a profit" would be ridiculous.
Do you think Vanguard has any reason to lie about their motivations here? Do you think their S&P500 MF/ETF distinguishes itself in any way from Fidelity's or is a motivating factor for having one? This is just a bizarre conspiracy theory to espouse on the basis of no evidence.
Being anti-cryptocurrency as an organisation really is an important differentiator.
Fidelity knows that investors in their cryptocurrency products will lose money in aggregate, but offers them anyway. It's a black mark against their integrity.
reply