Ghost_MH

He's not an actual criminal willing to sell the country out to foreign interests and to line his own pockets. He has his money, he just didn't want to lose it to taxes. Yeah, I get that that's an incredibly low bar, but I'll take drinking my own piss in the woods over nothing.

Were you not around during the 2016 elections?

Not looking forward to President Bezos or very definitely President Zuckerberg? The best thing Trump did for these guys was prove you don't really have to divest yourself of anything because it's not actually against the law, and even if it was, who cares when you control the DOJ.

Nobody is arguing he's good here. I'll be very happy when he's not in the running anymore. Everything you just said, though, calls him better than Trump. I know that's an incredibly low bar, but let's be objective here. A Bloomberg presidency is better than what we've got going now. If he were to become the nominee, would you vote for Trump? Even if Bloomberg tried to enact every last policy and legislation Trump has but didn't go around committing crimes left and right, that would still be an improvement over Trump. A pathetic improvement that proves we as Americans deserve what we get, but still an improvement. I'd even take the bland dollop of mayo over Bloomberg, but I'll take anything over Trump and arguing that they're the same oversimplifies the politics of this nation.

What, you don't want to go over the death of his parents for the twentieth time?

And yet he's still better than Trump. Even if they were the same, he still wouldn't have a party backing every awful piece of legislation he could imagine. He'd also have more than just one Mitt Romney on the left voting to impeach him if he did even a tenth of the corrupt shit Trump regularly pulls. How are we pretending that their presidencies would be functionally identical?

Ok, let's not go that far. Bloomberg only cares about protecting his wealth, not increasing it through the presidency. A Bloomberg presidency, while not ideal, would still be preferable to the guy intimating witnesses over Twitter, openly bribing New York into stopping their investigations into his businesses, and with an ego so frail he'd cause a recession over it.

If the goal is to stop something that is already in the middle of happening, disruptive protests are the only way to make sure that something stops. There's no better way for citizens to exert their immediate will on the government short of actual violence. In the US, if protests against Trump were actually disruptive, the GOP might have questioned their undying support. However, yes, getting permits for protests that are ignored in the press and dedicating a hashtag to it will force immediate change.

One, duck eggs are delicious and I prefer them over chicken eggs. Two, she mentions this in the best celebrity interview show on the Interwebs.

Great America Fucking Me Again? Make Americans Great Fuckers Again?

Zuck must be feeling sad about not being included.

Pokemon Home is now live, so have at it. It looks like just linking your Nintendo account will net you a Gen1 starter and Pikachu.

From DT's history of trying to sell T-Mobile? That only called down after the AT&T buy out failed and talk of a merger with Sprint popped up. No guarantee at all. Like I said, T-Mobile was in a pretty good place, but I don't see how anyone would be up for taking Sprint off SoftBank's hands. For some time people thought maybe they'd be acquired by someone like Apple or Google, but that seemed more and more unlikely as time went on. I'm just not all doom and gloom on this one like so many others are. This isn't a Disney acquiring Fox or Facebook acquiring WhatsApp scenario. This is the distant third competitor in their space gobbling up some faulting competition.

The point was that there's just no reason to assume things would continue the way they are now. Sprint was going to be picked to pieces or sold off as scrap eventually and Deutsche Telekom was going to continue to shop T-Mobile around until it found an administration that was willing to let it happen. Even if Deutsche Telekom all of the sudden became happy with T-Mobile and put to bed any ideas of dropping them, Sprint still wasn't performing and was still being shopped around. What outcome is anyone expecting here? I'd rather it be T-Mobile now than Verizon or AT&T later.

Merger because Softbank isn't going anywhere. It would only be a full acquisition is Deutsche Telekom completely took Sprint of Softbank's hands. Instead, this is turning into a new company shared by both parties that will run under the T-Mobile name since the Sprint name isn't worth much of anything.

Who's coming in to change the thread title?

Not since there was an inkling of a potential merger or acquisitions that could catapult them into even footing with Verzion and AT&T. This particular merger has been public for nearly two years. Even then, that's just T-Mobile. The same hasn't been true for Sprint. That's why Sprint is the one disappearing here with Softbank's stake in the new company being 27% compared to Deutsche Telekom's 42%.

Regardless of how T-Mobile is doing, their parent company has shown no interest is owning them. They've been trying to offload them for years now. Other than a merger like this, T-Mobile has no path to reaching the market share of Verizon or AT&T and that seems to be the only thing Deutsche Telekom wanted out of its T-Mobile ownership. Sprint was in a less enviable position where Softbank wasn't very interested in keeping Sprint and they just weren't exciting anyone. Softbank is certainly a company run by a guy that likes flashy things.

Eh, it was going to end poorly for either Sprint or T-Mobile regardless of anything else.

That's kind of the problem I have with everyone that has been upset about this merger. Neither Sprint or T-Mobile really wants to exist. Softbank has wanted to dump Sprint for some time and Deutsche Telekom been doing pretty much the same thing.

It's actually a fair question. His last two movies were English language films, so I don't think it's all that weird to ask him why he wanted to go Korean for Parasite. The question should lend itself to an answer about why he felt the change back to his native language worked better for this movie, even if it might have hurt his potential box office draw. He also risked his chances for some wins come awards season since foreign language films often have a harder time winning. Eh...I think it's a fine question to ask, even if it sounds dumb out of context.

And he's blitzed it with pictures of him and Obama hugging it out and being buddy-buddy.

No insurance or worse insurance is how people go bankrupt. Look at how much the hospital is charging there and how lucky they are they had insurance that covered the vast majority of it. I believe that's the point here.

Wait, what? I also thought that tweet was satire or just exaggeration, but he really said the words "lying dog-faced pony soldier"? What?

If anyone ever needed to see how little people actually pay attention, the entire clip is hysterically depressing.