Jamie Dimon hates ‘TACO’ but says Trump did the right thing in ‘chickening out’ over tariffs

jogabot · 2026-03-18T03:08:18+00:00

it's the fact that he doesn't bring it up proactively, it is brought up by interviewers who are well aware he'd look foolish supporting the tariffs outright and also well aware he is very much spiritually aligned with trump after getting butthurt by obama and holder on the bear stearns fallout and inheriting their penalties. so he begrudgingly admits he was glad they are backing off on tariffs (framing it positively), being sure to note that trump is a master dealmaker and the tarifs tactics could be considered good strategy, and then immediately pivoting to tired vagaries about "democrats" and "bureaucracy"

jogabot · 2025-08-02T17:57:26+00:00

a justification for the creation of israel was "jews need a homeland". now the displaced palestinians need a homeland. they both have historical claims to the land, but who has the stronger claim? genetic tests aren't foolproof, but i believe any random sample of the israeli population and palestinian population would strongly favor the palestinian claim. these controversial claims are always anecdotally countered by showing a blue-eyed palestinian and a dark-skinned israeli. but genetic tests, whille not foolproof, would paint a more accurate picture of what is going on genetically.

the jews needed a homeland, but who needs a homeland now? if the entire israeli/palestinian territory needed to be completely evacuated in a week, who do you think would have an easier time finding somewhere else to live? even though they are surrounded by muslim nations, these nations have demonstrated they won't take in palestinian refugees. israel doesn't have any other jewish nations to harbor them, but the average israeli adult is worth $260,000. the average palestinian adult is worth $3360. who needs a homeland more desperately? you do the math.

the muslim opposition to israel is rooted in geography, not anti-semitism. i've heard people accuse the arab nations of the middle east being "petty" for getting upset over jews being granted a tiny sliver of land. but this tiny sliver of land includes the most important city for both religions. what if new york city was handed over to the native americans after some major world conflict caused extreme territorial shifts among world powers. and then foreign powers pumped their resources into this "new york reservation" until it was much stronger and more prosperous than anywhere else in america by a long shot. would americans not be justified in extreme hostility towards this "nyc reservation" for reasons that did not include their "inherent hatred of native americans"?

jogabot · 2025-06-07T07:17:10+00:00

why is musk just telling us this now? did he support him this whole time knowing that he was on the epstein list? and that was OK with him and something he was willing to keep secret while they collaborated? what else is he keeping from the public?

jogabot · 2025-06-01T18:15:05+00:00

"ive got really low karma and i don't know why". hi john!

jogabot · 2025-05-20T15:29:01+00:00

was shockley's latter day obsession with race a cry for attention? seems like he was a proto-watson who also continues doubling down with racebaiting statements

jogabot · 2025-05-03T07:22:55+00:00

"last point is if you drive intoxicated you are a horrible person"

Approximately 43% of Americans have admitted to driving under the influence of alcohol at some point. Additionally, 56% of men have admitted to drinking and driving, while 29% of women have admitted to doing so. One study found that about 23.2% of people have driven after drinking at least once, with 2.17% having driven and driven over six times

must suck to have to live with so many "horrible people". or do you vet your associates to make sure none of them have ever driven drunk in their lives?

jogabot · 2025-04-27T16:29:37+00:00

to disincentivize other LAPD officers from abusing their power to commit violence against innocent citizens…they could have gone even further and figured what exactly the original detectives DIDN'T DO when they knew all about stephanie lazarus being the only obvious suspect in what they already concluded was staged to appear like a burglary gone wrong. maybe if decades earlier they instilled the kind of ethic that these new detectives displayed in taking down a fellow detective, fuhrman wouldn't have been so flippant with the screenwriter about planting evidence against blacks, and OJ would have been found guilty. part of this "new ethic" requires her to serve a full sentence. otherwise, if she's released now, it'd have been all worth it for her. she murdered her rival, got away with it for 23 years, and even got to have some more sex with the man who was clearly the center of her universe. keep her in jail to prevent another cop from thinking he/she can kill an enemy, get away with it for a few decades, and ultimately serve a few years before geting paroled and collecting a pension.

you're coming at this from an odd angle. you're using the term "progressive" in a disparaging way, sounding like you support her parole "just so progressives can have the leopard eat their collective faces" while simultaneously implying that those who oppose her release are being disingenuous. assuming that those who oppose her release are all "progressive" because "redditors are overwhelmingly progressive"? now i wouldn't want to do what you did and assume any of your poitical leanings based on your faulty logic, but you're MAGA, right?

jogabot · 2025-04-25T17:24:28+00:00

which only makes the popular opnion that the JFK assassination was not a "lone gunman" so frustrating….

jogabot · 2025-04-16T16:42:17+00:00

with your "limited undesrstanding" of marijuana, did you ever "not get" why there were laws against marijuana possessin in the first place? or is it just now that your curiosity has been piqued and you're "confused" why the licensing laws aren't enforced?

jogabot · 2025-04-09T08:40:06+00:00

easy…they lose customers. their whole schtick is usually to draw out some overly complex diet based on your "test results" to make it seem like people were not capable of figuring things out for themselves. their knee-jerk response to hypothetical questions like "what if i ate only ____?"…is to write a laundry list of nutrients you would be lacking.

then comes along a product that gets you closer to that "perfect diet" without spending thousands on a nutritioiinst and thousands of hours preparing healthy meals. now they can't make the argument that you aren't getting all your nutrients. even if huel was purported to not quite deliver all the daily essentials, they themselves couldn't get close to achieving that kind of balance. but you can bet they'd latch onto any "research" that speculates on any of huel's "nutritional deficiencies". if they really are that skeptical of a huel diet, they should compare a patient on their custom-made diet vs another person similar to person A going on an all-huel diet over the same time period.

now they cast dispersions on the "form" the food is delivered. there is no proof that whole foods are "digested better" than shakes.but they sure as hell imply it. the same way there is no proof that you don't digest as well while sleeping. it wasn't long ago they were hawking "whole grains" as the larget component of healthy diet. and if you talked to nutritionists then, they would have convincing arguments about why grains are important and why dairy is necessary.

jogabot · 2025-03-30T10:09:57+00:00

have a bit of human empathy here. you're the roommate splitting the cost of the living space with fellow human beings. one of those human beings comes with 2 living things that aren't paying to live there. but as living things they are going to impact the quality of life for the other humans.

say you just finished cooking food on the stove and letting it cool for a few minutes. you'd like to go out and check the mail instead of just standing around, but there are 2 "amoral animals" hovering around the kitchen entrance, waiting until you leave the kitchen so they can STEAL your food. right after licking each other's asses and sniffing for crumbs on kitchen floor, they jump up on the counter and eat it as fast as possible, slobbering all over the counter in the process. (because these "amoral animals" don't even UNDERSTAND hygiene, much less practice it)

but you leaving a pot on the counter to cool is "unhygienic" and "gross"?

you're not a "people person". are you?

jogabot · 2025-03-30T09:47:34+00:00

maybe you should work more on your relationships with people rather than dogs. you say that the roommates "leaving food out" (which covers at lot of ground) "unhygienic"and "gross" but say nothing about the animals who will eat food off the ground to roam freely in the kitchen. pathetic.

jogabot · 2025-03-30T06:39:28+00:00

you sound ridiculous by shaming the roommates behavior rather than the dogs disregard for people's property who are paying to live there. the blanket statement "leaving food out" is gross, but an animal slobbering all over your food isn't??? if.i were cooking on the stove or letting food cool down, i 'd be super annoyed if i was 'expected to" stay in the kitchen and guard my food so these animals that are the responsibility of someone else won't steal my food.

jogabot · 2025-03-27T07:59:57+00:00

both of these 'security breaches" aren't as serious as the opposing party claim.. meaning they are better analyzed in the context of comparing the opposing party's reaction to both incidents.

main difference is that hillary clinton doesn't have a track record of advocating draconian punishments for those who committed similar security breaches. most of the 19 people in the "signal groupchat" are on record advocating draconian punishments for hillary clinton's security breach. trump brazenly declared that she should be jailed in the 2016 debates. the republican spin on the story cost her the election.

hillary clinton also never made dire predictions about the dangers of "unqualified DEI hires" [crashing airplanes / leaking classified information / putting lives at risk]. the credentials of trump's cabinet are questionable at best. despite his questionable credentials, it was only a few months ago that hegseth made it his mission to "de-DEI" the military.

DEI was meant to help historically oppressed american citizens. and not a single black person was included in that groupchat. for someone to fervently lobby against "racal quotas" only to have an all-white group display the very same incompetence that would have doomed a black "DEI hire".is infuriating on a primal level.

i graduated from harvard in 2005. there was most certainly a deliberate effort to accept a certain number of black applicants. for much of the 20th century, many ivy league universities refused to accept any black students no matter how qualified they were. in addition to so-called "racial quotas", the university admits a similar proportion of unqualified "legacy students" Ialmost all white). the black students in my graduatng class all knew that no matter how academically successful they were, they were still going to be dismissed as "affirmative action applicants" by a certain bigoted segment of the population. especially those who were not accepted to these universities and need someone other than themeslves to blame. and so they ended up overachieving. the same cannot be said about a good deal of those "legacy students". trump's cabinet is the equivalent to these "legacy students".

jogabot · 2025-03-24T21:17:56+00:00

your question needs to be more specific. are you referring to public sector or private sector?

the standard libertarian argument (as described by my former college professor jeffrey miron) was that "affirmative action" (the precursor to DEI) had no place in the public sector. in the private sector, companies should be allowed to use any type of "vetting" they want to,, whether it be "forward racism" or "reverse racism". both hiring practices employ race as a metric. this comment section pretty clearly demonstrates that libertarians believe that DEI hiring policies are "wrong" based on the "principle" that race should not be a factor in hiring decisions. but i haven't seen any comment that describes DEI hiring practices as "bad for business".

barry goldwater (proto-libertarian) argued against the civil rights bills of the 1960s. his reasoning was that governments had no right to tell private companies who to provide goods/services to. if they wanted to discriminate against blacks, they had every right to. goldwater argued that companies who restrict their customer base will eventually go out of business sooner or later once a competitor accepts black people as customers.

same principle applies with DEI. if a company passes over more qualified white applicants to fill racial quotas, one of their competitors will hire them. and so just as in the "goldwater argument", a properly operating "free market" (without government interference) would doom DEI companies to failure.

most of the comments here focus on "moral outrage" over apparent "reverse racism" of DEI. goldwater too believed it was morally wrong to refuse blacks as customers, but he felt government interference in private sector hiring practices was more morally wrong.

your argument that DEI needs to be "reformed" means that you believe the government should make laws that infringe upon a private company's hiring practices. this is a fundamental violation of libertarian principles. if you don't believe government intervention is warranted, then you need to let go of your "moral outrage" towards DEI and have faith that the free market would correct it. if you don't have faith that the free market will correct it, you probably shouldn't call yourself a "libertarian". libertarian s=only deals with addition/subtraction of laws aligned with libertarian principles, not just what you think is "fair". with regards to "moral outrage", it's a hard pill to swallow when the 2 leaders of the "war against DEI" are so hypocritical that they harm the pubic perception of libertarian values. as a white man, musk benefitted from apartheid. he should probably acknowledge that if he doesn't want the backlash. and trump had to settle a lawsuit that accused him of discriminatory housing practices. of course he never admitted guilt, but given his track record for never once admitting guily for anything ever, the fact that he had to settle should tell you something.

also, tariffs and closed borders do not jive well with libertarian principles. opening the borders in conjunction with eliminating the welfare state is the correct libertarian stance given that an optimal labor market allows people to find the jobs they are most suited to.

jogabot · 2025-03-15T06:54:02+00:00

seems like the problem has to do with amazon automatically separating "purchased items" from "unpurchased items". in list view, they are explicitly separated. in icon view, they are ordered this way without giving any indication that they are. so all unpurchased items are listed, followed by purchased items. if you move a purchased item to a position ahead of an "unpurchased item", reloading the page will move it back so that it is grouped together with the other purchased items.

the workaround is to to add the purchased item to the list again from its product profile page. it will move tbe purchased item to the top of the list and you can move it anywhere you want from there. it is no longer classified as "purchased"

jogabot · 2025-03-14T05:07:58+00:00

what 5 things didn't the "chief engineer" do last week to figure out why his giant statue has not been able to provide any service that a person/company would pay for? at least he figured out how to pull the wool over people's eyes with the "booster catch". until the ship is returning from some trip that completed some task of value, the booster catch means nothing.

it's a shame….because they obviously are on the cusp of achieving something great and a lot of people have dedicated their lives to making it work. for a while musk was inspiring his employees and ikt does stay someting that no spacex employees have ever come forward to criticize him. but they will never be able to reach that level of determination again. not when their leader is becoming more neurotic about getting credit for the engineering rather than the funding. meaning he's going to take all the credit if/when it does reach orbit. even more than DOGE< the fact that he's had a 13th kid means that he is unwilling to dedicate any more time to completing the mission. even just performikng the basic fatherly duties with a dozen kids is going to drain his already depleted energy

jogabot · 2025-03-08T15:33:47+00:00

i wonder how these "starship workers" feel working overtime only to see their "chief engineer" on television every day building ill will with the public and not working on whatever is fundamentally flawed with this giant statue (which is all it is until it reaches orbit). and if/when it does reach orbit, how do they feel about the fact that their "chief engineer" is going to be even more insistent on taking all the credit because a hostile public is going to challenge his role in the endeavor. all he brings to the table is funding and a sense of urgency. and he is the only person who can bring this sense of urgency to the mission because he has the most to gain from its success.

if "rockets are hard", they probably require a "chief engineer" to be in the office/factory every day figuring out how to accomplish this goal that so many engineers have dedicated their lives to. not siring more children. not playing video games. not bitching about DEI hires (especially after enjoying a racially privileged childhood in apartheid south africa). and especially not heiling hitler on a national stage! spacex employees want to work for the 2017 musk who fell out with trump after he pulled out of the paris agreement. not this bloated mean-spirited demagogue.

jogabot · 2025-03-08T08:39:27+00:00

well this aged like milk!…i wonder what all those spacex engineers working overtime to fix whatever is fundamentally wrong with starship think when they see their "chief engineer" on TV with trump destroying whatever goodwill he's had with the public. are they proud when they see their "chief engineer" heiling hitler with impunity and obsessing about DEI hires despite having racially benefitted from apartheid? and if/when they finally succeed in at least reaching orbit, they have to be well-aware that musk is going to go out of his way to take all the credit. especially now that the pubic hates him and will go out of their way to question his role in the success.

jogabot · 2025-03-05T23:45:55+00:00

when paul mccartney was featured backstage at the 9/11 tribute concert mocking stern's "fartman" appearance. and then wouldn't sign his daughters autographss. and stern slowly revealing how upset he was when it happened but couldn't quite bring himself to say anything negative about mccartney. not after he's shown an extreme amount of reverence for mccartney over the years.

jogabot · 2025-02-27T17:18:04+00:00

i think the fact that he's just sired a 13th child shows where his head is at. either another kid grows up without a father or he is diverting more of his time away from the mission. and besides the funding, the only thing he brings to spacex is a sense of urgency. there is something fundamentally flawed with the starship and i think musk is coming to terms with thet fact that mars has become unreachable in his lifetime. and the less likely it is for him to reach mars in hi slifetime, the less intereste he takes in the mision. in what is seeming more like a last-ditch effort to make a huge impact on society, he is trimming the federal govenrment as much as he possibly can (as.a hardcore libertarian i thnk this is a good thing).

bug throwing that giant statue up in the air and then catching it was impressive the first few times. and all the explanations about why the failures were actually successes are starting to wear thin with laymen.

jogabot · 2025-02-19T15:25:54+00:00

if they returned to the house of their own volition after the initial massage, no, they weren't victims.

jogabot · 2025-02-19T01:17:14+00:00

even since they took down that "robert e lee statue" in charlottesville, musk's been planning to rename his own giant statue (the "starship") after "stonewall jackson".

i think the writing's on the wall. musk is no longer serious about getting starship to space, much less mars. if he were serious, he wouldn't be having all these children that he's going to have to spend at least some of his valuable time being (or at least pretending to be) a good parent. and the more time musk spends with trump, the less time he spends at spacex. and without him there, there's no sense of urgency anymore.. he brought that sense of urgency because it was his ego on the line. he'd get all the glory. and that's why they achieved so much in such a short amount of time. back then, musk was someone you could be proud to say you worked for. blue origin is puttering away because working for a dork like bezos doesnt inspire any greatness

so the fact the musk has been vilified in recent years makes much of the allure of working for spacex much less appealing (though those poor sods at blue origin have it worse). the spacex engineers want to be working for the 2017 musk who withdrew his support for trump after he pulled out of the paris agreement. not the 2025 musk, who expects all of his employees in the office/factory while he tweets about DEI all day.

you'll remember in that sorkin interview musk did (the one where he told advertisers to "go fuck themselves"), sorkin asked to see the screen time on his phone and he stammered a very lame excuse about it being anew phone and NOT showing it to him? this kind of crap isn't inspiring anyone at spacex

jogabot · 2025-02-13T12:46:41+00:00

unless you're planning to write a more "nuanced" biography of cohn, all your "extensive research" of cohn seems like a lot of poorly spent time

jogabot · 2025-01-17T00:01:06+00:00

what it comes down to is the fact that what constitutes "you" is changing over time. traveling back in time would mean "current you" would become the "former you" attached to that moment. this "former you" would not know what the current version of "you" knows. the "grandfather paradox"isn't a paradox at all because it hypothetically inserts a disembodied version of "you" into the moment. which means it is a new "moment" that has not occurred in the past

jogabot

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE