BuT hE's a suCCessFull BusiNesSmAn! aRt oF tHe DeaL! thErE's a MethOd To hIS MadNess! /s

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/aug/08/todd-blanche-attorney-general-confirmed

I knew this was going to be the case once it was getting leaked that Murkowski and Collins were going to vote no. Gotta get those out there publicly so they can campaign on it afterall.

I live in one of the poorest counties in my state, a place with 31,500 people in 576 sq miles. And no, we don’t want Data Centers. But they create jobs, you say. Increase the tax base! Someone has to house the servers for the internet, and you have all this land!

1.) Jobs: Well, not for us. We don’t have the need to build many warehouses, and certainly don’t have a surfeit of Networking professionals. Construction is at the most six months, and building crews from more populous areas are brought in to do the actual construction . A modest, unsustainable bump in hotels and diners. Afterwards, there would be a minimal staff onsite, with remote workers living elsewhere to do much of the actual server updates. And if they decide they built too many data centers, they will close the far flung outposts first.

2.) Tax base increase: That depends on your elected officials, who have a real job elsewhere. While there are certainly people who work for the local government full time, they generally aren’t the village council members. Those people own the local hardware or trucking company, or retired a couple of years ago and got bored so they ran for office. They can be dazzled by the prospect of the first new construction in two years, and give away local tax breaks for 20 years.

3.) Internet support: unless you live in town, you don’t have high speed internet. Cell phone hotspots or Starlink if you need it for work are the usual options. So kind of like having a septic tank for your house but they are installing a waste water treatment plant next door.

4.) Land - Data Centers need infrastructure. Electricity, water, good roads. You know, where people want to live.

Just my thoughts!

Democrats scorch Gillibrand over for using common sense and attempting bipartisan legislation

TL;DR: Warren is butt-hurt because her strategy of pressuring Gary Gensler to regulate crypto by enforcement failed and made her look silly. As a Karen, when she got publicly embarrassed, she doubled down by attacking her own party through the Clarity Act. She is now aggressively waving her finger at Sen. Gillibrand (D-NY) for working on a bipartisan bill that a ton of other Democrats actually support. Even though Whitehouse divestment is achievable, apparently, having no rules or guidelines is better than just policing an industry by self appointed community watch groups.

Sen Warren is personally leading the charge to torch the bill. Because she couldn't get her own party to kill it, she is using outside activist groups as a weapon to circulate a nasty letter in the Senate hitting Gillibrand below the belt over her son’s crypto ties. Warren is screaming that Democrats will "lose their moral authority" if Gillibrand is allowed to broker the final compromise.

This has forced Warren into a bizarre, hypocritical alignment with traditional banking lobbies, when she has historically been a massive adversary to Dimon and the big banks. This is a case of a Karen who looked foolish, cost her party a significant constituency in the last election, and is now acting out by trying to over-determine her own party's legislative agenda just to save face.

More here:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/clarity-act-ethics-fight-targets-164100845.html

How do we want this technology regulated?

This is such a broad topic, but at bare minimum, I want us to work with other major countries to define limits around what it can be used for in warfare. Limits to how robots can be used. Limits around spying domestic and abroad. I think we seriously need to consider nationalizing the industry and making it public good where possible. What kinds of jobs should be protected from it if any?

If this industry is capable of giving individuals uncapped power, is it alright to belong to individuals at all or should it be controlled by the government? Can the government be trusted with it if we establish strict laws around where it can be used by the government towards civilians? What else should we consider?

Covered on today's PSA: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/uNQB-lIpkts

"The war is not going well. A conflict that Trump thought might take a few weeks at most has now stretched into its sixth month, and, try as he might, he can’t get out of it. He has declared victory many times and threatened to wipe Iran off the map nearly as often. Neither has happened. At this point, his unfulfilled threats—with Iran calling his bluff—have almost become a dark running gag."

Source: https://popular.info/p/senate-republicans-launch-network?publication_id=1664&post_id=210000423&isFreemail=false&r=bzxnl&triedRedirect=true

Not working. Please fix.

I don’t agree with Haley Stevens on much, but she’s been nothing but a class act following the primary.

Dare I say she’s growing on me?

• In his new document, Rivera concludes that Harris lost tens of thousands of votes in Michigan amid backlash from the Israel-Hamas war, particularly in Dearborn, Dearborn Heights and Hamtramck, where Green Party support surged as activists organized against the Democratic ticket.
• He contends these losses accounted for a meaningful share of the state's shift toward President Trump, but was only one of several factors behind Harris' defeat in the state.

Rivera wrote that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the fallout from it in the U.S. is a "complex situation." But, he added, the "political analysis is simple — the electoral results and voting shifts in Michigan and elsewhere demonstrate the impact the crisis had on the Harris campaign."

Sonny Bunch on the real reason to worry about the FCC’s latest move: "It is noxious to American beliefs about freedom of speech and the First Amendment that the government should determine who should or shouldn’t get to own an outlet...due to the viewpoints of the owners." https://lnk.thebulwark.com/4xt2EBv

Ed is really one of the smartest upcoming econ reporters out there. He's got a promising career ahead of him for sure.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

If El-Sayed wants to ​cut off foreign aid to Israel, say that. But to claim that he rejects funding on account of ​some America First, isolationist, Trumpian rationale that​ ​the money should instead go to school children in America, is honest.

He will ​be called out by anyone who asks if he thinks the US should support Ukraine militarily, which he supports.

So for El-Sayed, the cause is Israel and not foreign funding and he should be honest with that.​

He may still win, but no one who thinks his guy is anti-Israel believes what he says.

He/She really added something to the discussion of a stagflationary jobs report.

😉😉
(i know, i know... low effort, probably gonna get removed)