• TerkErJerbs@lemm.eeEnglish
    481·
    11 hours ago

    For anyone on this thread who doesn’t know who Ken Klip is, please check out his free Substack (and subscribe if you can). I wasn’t on Twitter very long (maybe 1.5 years before Elmong took over) but one of the people I value that I ran into on that platform is Ken Klippenstein and I’ve been following him since. He’s amazing at filing thousands of FOIA requests and doing the digging into them that no mainstream journalist does anymore. He also recently quit The Intercept because they were enshittifying far more than he was comfortable with, which for a writer is a huge thing to leave the umbrella of a company like that and a paycheck behind. Writers going out on their own in this climate is the only way we’ll stay even remotely unfucked in the post-information (or misinformation) age.

    Klip fuckin rules. Please give him some due.

    • cyrano@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
      15·
      7 hours ago

      Some ai tdlr The document appears to be a comprehensive research dossier on J.D. Vance, dated February 23, 2024, and labeled as “Privileged & Confidential.” It includes detailed background on Vance’s political career, financial records, personal history, and potential vulnerabilities. Below is a summary of key sections:

      1. Executive Synopsis and Vulnerabilities:

        • Anti-Trump Record and Establishment Ties: During the 2016 election, Vance was opposed to Donald Trump, referring to Trump as dangerous and criticizing his policies. He was described as a “never Trumper” and expressed doubts about Trump’s effectiveness.
        • Questionable Conservatism: Vance’s political positions often cross party lines. He has praised certain Democratic policies, opposed some core Republican policies like the 2017 tax cuts, and supported higher taxes for businesses and individuals without children. His stance on labor unions and criticism of corporate interests also mark him as diverging from traditional Republican economic priorities.

      2. Top Hits:

        • Political and Voting History: Vance failed to vote in several elections between 2018 and 2020 and was not a registered Republican in Hamilton County until 2022.
        • Lobbying Ties: While at Sidley Austin, Vance worked for clients such as Purdue Pharma and companies tied to the Chinese Communist Party.
        • Liberal Tendencies: Vance has previously expressed admiration for Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Bernie Sanders.

      3. Campaign Finance:

        • 2022 Senate Campaign: Vance raised nearly $16 million, with contributions from Republican committees, corporations, and notable PACs. He also received donations from individuals with anti-Trump views.
        • 2028 Re-election Campaign: Since 2023, Vance raised over $1.5 million, with funds coming from PACs and corporations like SpaceX, Honeywell, and Comcast.

      4. Policy and Controversial Views:

        • Vance has supported raising taxes, especially for those without children, and has advocated for stronger labor union reforms.
        • He has been critical of both Republican efforts to repeal Obamacare and Trump’s domestic policies.
        • On social issues, Vance opposes abortion, supports traditional family structures, and advocates for stricter immigration controls.
        • He has also been critical of foreign interventions, particularly in Ukraine, and supports non-interventionism.

      5. Personal Information:

        • Vance is married to Usha Bala Vance and has three children. He has served as a U.S. Senator from Ohio since 2023. Prior to that, he worked in venture capital and at a law firm.

      This summary highlights Vance’s evolving political positions, campaign finance details, and areas of potential vulnerability that could be used by opponents in future political contests.

    • rsuri@lemmy.worldEnglish
      10·
      10 hours ago

      This is pretty much a summary of a lot of already public data. Could be valuable as an appendix of ways to attack Vance but otherwise not much new here.

      My takeaway is the Trump campaign was too sycophantic to Trump to notice Vance’s actual problems. They have records of his weird views on domestic violence and other strange views but they’re buried in mountains of data about everything he’s said about Trump. And his obsession with childless women isn’t in the document anywhere as far as I can tell.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        2 hours ago

        I didn’t even take that away from it because, like you said, it was all public information already. The second I heard they picked the guy who called Trump “America’s Hitler” was when I knew that they once again didn’t bother doing their due diligence.

  • Reality Suit@lemmy.oneEnglish
    1623·
    17 hours ago

    Musk is a fucking anti American liability. How the fuck does he have access to military contracts

    • TimeSquirrel@kbin.melroy.org
      3011·
      16 hours ago

      Well, despite its owner, SpaceX is actually doing cool and useful stuff. Nobody else bothered with the reusable rocket thing until they made it happen. Starship is on the way to becoming the world’s first 100% reusable orbital transport system, propulsively landing the second stage as well as the first. Soon as they get those toasty melty flaps figured out.

      It just sucks that he’s in control of it.

      • Kecessa@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        662·
        15 hours ago

        Maybe NASA would have bothered if its funding hadn’t been cut again and again and again…

        • CmdrShepard42@lemm.eeEnglish
          616·
          16 hours ago

          NASA farms these out to outside companies to build anyway, as seen with the latest Boeing space fiasco, so I don’t necessarily believe this to be true. These defense contractors seem to be interested in little more than milking the US government for all they’re worth.

            • CmdrShepard42@lemm.eeEnglish
              61·
              12 hours ago

              They have a $25B yearly budget.

              What is SpaceX spending on R&D? From what I’ve read, Starship is estimated to cost $10B for development and their R&D budget for 2023 was $1.5B. If NASA was going to build something similar themselves, they’ve had nearly 70 years and hundreds of billions to accomplish it.

              In reality their budget goes toward companies like Boeing, Northrop Grummon, and Lockheed Martin, who then pocket it and build substandard equipment. This is all public information so I can’t imagine why people are downvoting other than being extremely emotional for some inexplicable reason.

              • theneverfox@pawb.socialEnglish
                8·
                5 hours ago

                NASA doesn’t have effective control of their budget anymore. Congress holds the purse strings and uses them like a harness

                NASA gets funding to do something - like go to the moon, or track CO2 emissions. But it comes with strings - sometimes you have to build a certain component in a certain congressional district, sometimes Congress chooses the design you have to use

                It’s a problem of politics and corruption. When the public supports NASA, they have more autonomy. When NASA gets a blank check, they do more with it - reusable rockets aren’t a new idea, and when they cancelled the shuttle program NASA had brain drain. Some of those people founded spaceX - Elon didn’t start it, he came in when they were getting off the ground, just like with Tesla

            • ripcord@lemmy.worldEnglish
              34·
              14 hours ago

              What spacecraft do you think they built themselves, without big contractors doing mos5 of the work…?

        • MaggiWuerze@feddit.orgEnglish
          917·
          16 hours ago

          I actually prefer NASA to focus on science engineering. There’s a need for private launch capabilities anyway and this way NASA can focus on what they do best.

          • TheFriar@lemm.eeEnglish
            291·
            15 hours ago

            What’s the need for private launch capabilities? Private = capitalist. I don’t see much good in capitalist ventures.

            • MaggiWuerze@feddit.orgEnglish
              16·
              14 hours ago

              Because there’s a need for private satellites? Should NASA use limited resources for that?

      • empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        321·
        15 hours ago

        People forget Musk isn’t actually technically smart, he’s just good at buying into and investing in already good ideas using money he got by playing the capital machine (and his parents south africa money).
        He didn’t found PayPal; he merged another company with them and capitalized on their already good idea.
        He didn’t found Tesla, he invested in them and then drove the original founders out.
        He did admittedly create SpaceX, but only by bringing on good engineers from the start after failing to buy ICBM’s from Russia. Yes, he tried that… spaceX has been successful only because he gave them the runway to let engineers work right.

        The cult of personality is insane, he’s just another average investor bro who got lucky in the crazy growth of the 90’s/00s.

        • theneverfox@pawb.socialEnglish
          2·
          5 hours ago

          It’s more than that - he failed to create PayPal so his group bought a competitor, he didn’t found Tesla or spaceX - he claimed he did, then reached settlements with the actual founders to not contest his claims. He did start the boring company. It didn’t get off the ground because he can’t build a team

      • TachyonTele@lemm.eeEnglish
        41·
        15 hours ago

        I’m hoping reusables becomes so standard Musks company isn’t needed anymore.

        But that’ll be a long ways off. I agree SpaceX basically revitalized the industry.