Fair enough.

I see the whole article?

The US Treasury Department is now accepting Venmo and PayPal payments from those who want to donate money to reduce the nation’s ballooning $36.7 trillion debt.

We're all just trying to find the guy responsible!

Why do well more than half the news links in this community have pay walls?

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2025/07/26/world/politics/us-nonwhites-trump-south-african-refugees/

Every time i see lisp i realize why it never caught on. A syntax only its creator could love.

)))))))))))

Obama:

The CIA and FBI rushed to put together reports about Russian campaign interference. While there were discussions internally about sources and what to include the CIA allowed less credible sources to be included in an appendix but did not rely on it for analysis.

Trump:

Find me DIRT on the LYING DEMOCRATS and Obama!

More like a political commissar...

I doubt it'll last though. Hopefully it lasts at least long enough for a sane administration to get back in office.

Mercedes says the Microsoft partnership turns your car into a "third workspace"

Horaaaaaay, question mark?

Yes, they pump rats full of a fuckton of these chemicals that no normal human being will ingest

"Dosage make the poison" comes to mind. If it's safe below those levels... Then it's not harmful. "BUT IT MIGHT BE" is not a coherent argument. I'm not necessarily against banning a substance that has little functional use out of an abundance of caution - but lets not pretend that it's going to save any lives since it's very unlikely to do so.

A red dye was recently banned because it was found to be carcinogenic.

That is very oversimplified...

Carcinogenic is not "true/false" it is probabilistic. The EU has a lower standard of evidence required for banning a substance than the US. In the EU if there was any evidence at all of it being carcinogenic in animal studies (whether in realistic quantities over realistic time periods or not) means it will be banned (I'm over-simplifying some here as well). The US standards are different.

You could say that this is a better standard as it is more cautious. I may agree. But you can't say "it was banned because it was carcinogenic" without a lot of qualifiers.

Everyone around me thinks the crap they allow in our food is bad for us.

Without evidence of course. Just the same lack of critical thinking that RFK has. It "seems bad" and "it's chemicals".

Europeans done have the same issues we do with food because they’re much more regulated.

BS.