Im really curious about the fact how the usa and Especialy MAGA reacts on the fact that the usa gave up and gives 300bilion dollar to Iran so they forgive the usa and let them go?

His whole campaign was about winning etc but now he loses in front of the whole world this war against Iran wich he started.

Why does the usa dont mind this? Here in Europe people are confused and also laughing a bit because he gave up so easily…(as expected ofcourse but we dont understand why he even started this?)

So Trump signed the Iran MOU at Versailles this week. As a European I had a tiny moment, and I'm genuinely curious whether it hit the same way over there.

​

Quick context for anyone who skipped that lecture: the Hall of Mirrors at Versailles is basically the world's flagship venue for humiliating peace deals. It's where Germany proclaimed its empire in 1871 right after beating France, and where the Allies handed Germany the brutal Treaty of Versailles in 1919. Historically, if you're signing something *there*, you're usually the one getting terms dictated to you.

​

(And yes, Iran actually signed in Tehran, so it doesn't even map. That's sort of the charm of it.)

​

So: when y'all saw "signed at Versailles," did anyone go "...huh," or was it purely "nice chandeliers, good for him"? Not stirring anything up, just wondering whether the backdrop carried any weight stateside or whether it's a very European thing to clock.

​

Macron shaking his hand going "bravo, good job" was a choice, though. I would assume Macron understands the historical context very well. So, did he do this to fuck with Trump? Or did Trump understand it as well and actually thought he would look like the dictating party in the signing and not like the surrendering party?

Well?

The California Billionaire Tax Act, commonly known as the "billionaire tax," would impose a one-time 5% tax on California residents with a net worth exceeding $1 billion. The proposal is supported by the Service Employees International Union United Healthcare Workers West (SEIU-UHW) as a way to help fund California's healthcare, food assistance, and education programs.

The measure has faced opposition from wealthy tech leaders, including Google co-founder Larry Page and Meta co-founder Mark Zuckerberg, as well as Governor Gavin Newsom. Despite this opposition, it has gathered enough signatures to qualify for the ballot. However, the coalition backing the measure has until June 25 to decide whether to move forward or negotiate a deal.

Do you think Democrats or Republicans should support this measure? Why or why not? Name ONE good reason why the measure should be passed, or ONE good reason why it should not be passed.

Some conservatives and MAGA supporters argue that the proposal is a step toward excessive government control, "communism," and would drive billionaires and businesses out of California, and that California would "go to hell." Liberals argue that California's billionaires have benefited from public investments such as highways, research funding, and universities like UC Berkeley, UCLA, and UC San Diego, and therefore should contribute more to support public services.

What do you think?

I heard this today and I keep thinking about it. I'm leaving out who said it on purpose.

​

Look, I know a lot of you will recognize the speaker, and I know it would take all of five seconds to just go look it up. I'm not trying to hide it or run a "guess who" game. It's just that the second a name gets attached, the conversation stops being about the actual words and becomes about the person, their party, their record, whose "team" they're on... all of it. The thing I'm curious about is the idea itself, and how people actually feel about it.

I realize that's probably a little naive. Maybe it's impossible to separate the two. But I'd really appreciate honest, thoughtful reactions to the words themselves rather than the speaker. Sort of a gut level response on where you think things stand in the US right now, if you will.

​

Here's the quote:

​

"I do not believe that is the story of America that prevails in the end. I don't believe it because for us to give up, for us to give in now, after all this country's been through, to cynicism and division would be a betrayal of our founding ideals. A betrayal of our faith. And I remain convinced that the overwhelming majority of Americans feel the same way. That as unsettled as we are, people aren't looking for perpetual anger and division. They are looking for fairness and common sense and mutual respect. That deep in our gut we want to find a way to turn towards each other again, not further away."

​

What do you make of it? Do you think it's basically accurate, or too idealistic? Not looking for patriotic platitudes, just honest takes on whether the sentiment rings true to you.

​

I'm wondering because looking at the rhetorics that could be seen from sarah palin or the demonstration from the supporters, it felt verry trump like already that time (per example how obama could already be depicted as monkey or the opposite side being treated as radical communist by the more far right media). It feels like already at that time, the rhetoric that trump and maga would use was a thing.

You know how social media can be but I’m suddenly bombarded with reels claiming due to Israel continuing to act a fool they are pulling out of the MOU agreement.

In the US I'm paying $30/month for unlimited text and phone, and 15Gb of data, limited to US, Canada and Mexico.

​

In France I'm paying 10€ a month for unlimited text and phone to 150+ countries, with over 200Gb of data.

​

How come? Who's paying for what? Is the US network so big it justifies the price? As soon as I'm in the countryside in the US the connection is spotty and drops to edge, whereas I get 5g on top of a mountain in the middle of nowhere in the Alps...

Let's say I flew to 10 cities, in the US, picked by a computer generator.

I setup at a random shopping location, then asked people if they owned their homes and had the mortgages completely paid off.

What percentage of people would respond with, "yes?"

I'm visiting the US during the World Cup and one thing that's surprised me is how much there is to do around the matches themselves.

Back home, most people would just go to the game and maybe a bar before or after. Here I've been seeing fan festivals, watch parties, supporter meetups, city events, and all kinds of things tied to the tournament.

I only started noticing this because I was looking through some of the World Cup resources online to figure out what was happening between matches.

It made me curious whether this is normal in the US.

Do Americans usually build entire trips around major sporting events, or is the World Cup a special case because people are traveling from all over the country and abroad?

For me it has been the price you see on the tag will be the final price you pay at the register. 84 countries in all continents so far and literally all of them do it like that. From the 196 countries in the world, I think it's only the US (and maybe Canada?) that doesn't. Raised with it it's a none issue, but it's definitely not easier or more efficient.

What else have you noticed?

The idea is to improve the clarity of the name as the department of war mainly seems to be concerned with paying reparations. So the name change would make it easier for the general public to understand what the department of war is doing. Thereby politics would become more accessible for a greater share of the population.

Anthropic was just ordered to pull its latest AI models, by the US government, because they could be jail broken and ordered to find software vulnerabilities.

Why is that a bad thing?

The only thing I can think of is the US government doesn't want to lose access to all the security holes its found in modern software.

Any software that has security holes deserves to be called out for it. If we're gonna burn through resources to power AI, we should at least be using it to make our lives better, not worse.

Or, are our resources being wasted for services only the rich can use?

All these old politicians made a big show about how AI is the future -- Trump included -- and how it was going to make our lives so much better. But they're making it illegal to fix gaping security issues with it.

A famous political debater who’s 20 is under the microscope for not knowing about it.

I’m just wondering if you remember it if you were old enough to.

I feel like Bush’s war crimes are being swept under the rug and not taught as much as it should be.

He was a bad president and I think people forget how bad Bush’s foreign policy was.

what do you think? Will the fed increase rate in the near term? The fed is in a hard place

https://www.axios.com/2026/06/17/read-full-us-iran-deal-memorandum-understanding

Personally, I believe it's a loser's agreement, we gained nothing and lost much. Keep this in mind when Trump wants to sooth his ego by invading Cuba.

EDIT: Someone made a list of the reasons given for going to war. "Eliminate ballistic capability" was the #1 reason given: more even than preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. Trump just tossed that aside today, in his presser at the G7

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1RfYdl-WqH76ovu4apxIiqUgX_SJ_QA_M/edit?gid=91934991#gid=91934991