AMD EPYC 9755 / 9575F / 9965 Benchmarks Show Dominating Performance

[mSparks]

Russia, Iran, Venezuela, and China don't have a free press. They are also allied, and thus share common world views.

So, once you bought into this "CIA control of western media" conspiracy theory, you pretty much left yourself open to all the propaganda being pushed out by these other governments. What's funny to me is how you reject all Western media because it might be tainted by some government influence (which I very much reject), and instead you're opting to believe media that is very clearly state-controlled. It makes no sense, if you're really trying to avoid state control, as you claim.

Well, absolutely agree they dont have a press that can do or say whatever they want - most of that is the product of decades of subversion by the Anglo-Saxon cult of Jeffrey Epstein.

The difference however is they don't put the same beer goggle filters on what they write about the cult of Jeffrey Epstein, and unlike what you are calling a "free press" they are (more or less) absolutely free to write about what the cult of jeffrey epstein is doing.

I saw the deputy PM of 🇷🇸 do a really good job of explaining that situation a day or two ago on RT

https://www.rt.com/news/606682-west-trying-rewrite-history/

Stories like that are literally illegal in the UK and Europe (Germany just sent a couple to prison for reposting them), and I very much doubt you will find analogues in US media.

[coder]

I think it was the Daily News that published a front page story about Trump with huge picture, raking him over the coals, with a bs story that was debunked within 24 hours.

Ut took them 2 weeks to publish a correction, in the back of the newspaper right before the sports section starts, small 3 lines that said the story we ran was not correct, we retract the story. They didn't put a front page story to tell people they were wrong, they put a snippet that most people would miss.

Isn't New York Daily News a tabloid? Tabloids publish all sorts of junk.

For me what really drove the brainwashing home was Halloween weekend right before the 2020 elections.

One of the cable channels that runs horror movies all month of October was running a Resident Evil marathon.

At first I didn't notice what they were doing, it was almost subliminal but I realized what i was seeing when the commercials would come on.

During the movie, in the upper left hand corner, there was a tiny message overlayed that said "This is what happens when you don't vote".

The message would disappear during the commercials and come on during the movie.

RE is inspired by the video game about a contagion created by an evil corporation that is released on purpose and turns people into blood thirsty zombies.

Tell me that it's not a form of election interference, a form of brain washing, to display such a message during such a movie a couple of days before the election.

This was a "cable channel", you say? Was it local, or one of the big national ones? I'd guess it was probably some low level employee's idea of a joke.

You can see the same shit this election, the main stream media is so in the bag for Kamala it's sad.

Trump says something they fact check him in real time, during the debate, even when the fact check is wrong, Kamala says something there's no pushback.

What did she say that you think they should've corrected?

Trump is a pathological liar. He can't talk for even a couple minutes without spewing blatant lies. He does it for all kinds of reasons, and he's learned that if you say something with enough conviction and in absolute terms, many people will think there might be at least some truth to it, especially if it aligns with their beliefs, values, or preconceptions.

The day after the debate there was a website that was going to fact check both candidates, before they did they published a disclaimer apologizing for fact checking Kamala but claiming they wanted to be fair.

Who made the website? If it were a serious media organization, I think they wouldn't put such an apology.

[coder]

Oh yeah, it really benefited him.

He does it for his ego and he even said, during the 2016 campaign, that he was going to make money off the campaign, even if he didn't win.

He used the Presidency to elevate the Trump brand, hoping it would benefit his businesses (including the newly-opened Trump hotel in Washington DC, where many visiting diplomats stayed). He also had a practice of having the Secret Service stay at Trump properties and charged them excessive rates.

He was impeached twice, indicted four times, has civil judgments issued against him in excess of 600 million dollars and they tried to kill him twice.

What matters is his intent, not whether it worked out for him in the end. If you try to rob a bank and fail, you're still guilty of a crime.

According to CNN Trumps net worth went down from 2016 to 2020 from 3.7 billion to 2.5 billion:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/09/politics/forbes-400-donald-trump-wealth/index.html

Geez. Try actually reading your links, for once! They explain:

"Why the dip in Trump’s fortune? The coronavirus pandemic. The value of office buildings, hotels and resorts have taken a hit amid the pandemic,"

Income, estate, capital gains, inheritance and property taxes are by definition unfair, punish success and in the end do not accomplish anything as evidenced by the fact that the national debt keeps ballooning.

Taxes pay for services, including national security. Just by living here, you benefit from national defense, the justice system to keep you and your property safe, the coordination of national infrastructure, the activities of FCC and NIST to establish a foundation for all the technology infrastructure on which we depend, etc. Heck, even if you don't drive, you still benefit from the department of transportation for ensuring that goods can be transported with relative safety and efficiency.

In some measure, economic activity can serve as a rough proxy for reliance on these systems and services, which is why I think it's fair to tax income. To the extent that you benefit from government protection of your property and assets, there's some argument to be made for property taxes, although I think they should be a lot lower than income.

As for whether taxes accomplish anything, if you look at the deficit and eliminate tax revenue, the debt would explode so fast that we'd run out of money virtually over night! Just because taxes and spending have gotten out of step doesn't mean that taxes are pointless!

If you confiscated through taxation every single penny every billionaire in America has the U.S. government would get 6.1 trillion dollars:

FWIW, I don't think the solution is as simple as "tax the rich". They do need to pay their fair share, but so does everyone else.

More importantly, what we need to do is replace all taxes with a consumption tax, like sales taxes, and make it progressive, like the luxury tax.

We could do something like a flat 10% sales tax on any item under 40k, 15% on anything between 40k and 100k, and 20% on anything over 100k.

That's regressive (disproportionately hurts people who turn around and spend the majority of their income). The next problem is that if you tax spending too much, then people will buy less, which is bad for the economy. Finally, people who can afford to save and invest most of their income will end up with much more than everyone else, which just leads to greater wealth inequality.

Wealth inequality correlates with many different societal problems. It's corrosive to society, if too much of the wealth is too concentrated. If the wealthy don't want to be confined to gated compounds, for most of their life, then it's really in their interest for the wealth to be shared more broadly.

In order to get broader support we could say a flat 15% income and capital gains tax.

We're more in agreement, here.

And we could stop spending money like a child with his parents credit card.

Spending (which includes tax breaks) indeed needs to be brought into better alignment with revenues.

Because no where does he actually say he would use the military against his political enemies.

He does mention the National Guard and Military, and says he would use them against the enemy within but that's not what his enemies are claiming he said.

Also, the National Guard is the part of the Military and they are already used domestically, in fact that is their purpose.

The National Guard is very rarely used in policing-type actions, and only in true emergencies when the police can't cope with the situation by themselves. Using the military on civilians denies them due process. You shouldn't advocate for any such policies that you wouldn't like to be used against you by another administration. Even if Trump wins, the shoe may one day eventually end up on the other foot.

Also, do you not care that Trump's own staffers, including generals and his longest-serving chief of staff have published an open letter warning against re-electing him? This is quite an unprecedented move. These are not lefty liberals and it's not as if they were all fired by Trump, either. You should read what they had to say.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/10/25/never-trump-former-officials-back-kelly-warning-00185435

[sophisticles]

@coder

So, considering that Trump is projected to win both the popular vote and the electoral count, what does that tell you about the Liberal, Leftist, "joyful" campaign, about Biden and Kamala, when the American public clearly decided that a so-called conman, Russian puppet, dictator wannabe, racist, danger to democracy is the better choice?