That just sounds like more talk. Your standard of comparison isn’t talk vs action, it’s talk vs more blunt talk. Not really saying you’re wrong, but wouldn’t somebody be able to comment on an article reporting your ideal headline “talk is cheap”?

Do the optics of appointing your brother to a cabinet position really make sense though? I think there’s plenty of aversion to the concept of yet another American political dynasty

Lifelock marketing department salivating at this new ad script

I hate to break it to you, but Russia crossed that particular Rubicon at Bucha and so many other places already. So first place is already taken

OP is from sigmoid.social according to the profile, and that is a mastodon instance. They tooted on Mastodon with the correct @ mention of the community, resulting in the toot showing up as a post in this lemmy community. We can reply to and interact with this specific post, although I’m not sure how it shows up to a mastodon user, seeing as the front end is quite different. We are unable to interact with Mastodon toots that aren’t tagged in a way that tie them to a Lemmy community and create a correlating post

But the deniers mentioned in the article are in the UK, hence the relevance

There would be no economic power to back up a UN currency, meaning it would be dependent on voluntary participation from the bulk of the member states’ economies, which likely means that it would quickly devolve to either a protest currency used by anti-west regimes, a slightly federated version of the dollar that is responsive to the needs and desires of mainly the US and partially the EU, or it will be dropped/ignored by both the West and the Anti-west and become a currency of minimal value that is used only on the fringes of the world economy. The UN simply does not have the centralized capacity to operate a currency and enforce that currency’s use amongst it’s member states, especially those that already have a hegemony that would be threatened by such a currency

There would be no economic power to back up a UN currency, meaning it would be dependent on voluntary participation from the bulk of the member states’ economies, which likely means that it would quickly devolve to either a protest currency used by anti-west regimes, a slightly federated version of the dollar that is responsive to the needs and desires of mainly the US and partially the EU, or it will be dropped/ignored by both the West and the Anti-west and become a currency of minimal value that is used only on the fringes of the world economy. The UN simply does not have the centralized capacity to operate a currency and enforce that currency’s use amongst it’s member states, especially those that already have a hegemony that would be threatened by such a currency