Wow, thanks for the video actually. For a long time I felt he was complete jerk but I felt it was maybe biased propaganda. The mere fact he couldn't answer a basic question and explain for all those who don't know, but rather stormed out like a 4 year old child, only proves what I felt about him prior.
Your comment is a great example of someone deciding on a conclusion first, then backfilling a justification using minimal evidence—in this case, a single data point—to validate an existing suspicion or bias. With that standard, you can make virtually any public or semi-public figure look bad if you’re willing to cherry-pick a small enough slice of information.
Take it for whats its worth but I been good friends with someone who works in Newsom camp, and constantly goes for a bite with his team. They talk alot. The main theme now is how to use illegal immigration situation to their benefit. If Newsom is elected President, he wants to go door to door in search for illegal guns that illegals are harboring. Of course all this is BS, or in such insignificant amount that its rather irrelevant. But they want to use Republican's hate for immigrants to help them catalog all serials numbers and ownership of us-owned guns. To some degree it will be fun to watch the "all she had to do is comply with Federal law not to get killed while running away in her car" people rounded up and having their guns cataloged in the name of fight with illegal immigration, and in accordance with Federal law :)
Huh? Are you saying that if Gavin Newsom is elected, rather than turning down the rhetoric, restoring the rule of law, and taking the pressure off of the immigrants and brown people who are scapegoats of the current administration, he instead wants to commit violations of the 4th amendment under the color of searching for immigrants but _actually_ in order to find firearms that are legally owned by US citizens? Presumably in preparation for a mass violation of the 2nd amendment (aka "round 'em up boys")? And your source for this is ... you're friends with someone who works "in the Newsom camp" and you go out for lunch with them?
I'll be honest, this sounds like some crazy conspiracy theory, so I'm gonna take it for what it's worth ... nothing.
Of course the actual implementation is much easier. Just repeal the laws that prevent digitizing the existing records and building a database. That will cover the majority of individuals even if there is a long tail of untracked firearms.
In your “it would be fun to see people I don’t like being killed” you have conflated legal gun ownership that you don’t like to illegally crossing the remaining the borders of a country… and you can’t see it huh?
I think the last part of my post makes it clear that I do. But if not, let me just make clear that we have to struggle through the Harding administration as best we can, but better days are ahead.
How about not going there at all for whatever reason, under any circumstances. And there are bigger issues at stake, no amount of drugs "made in Venezuela" inhaled by Americans can kill them as much as one North Korean Nuke.
I'm surprised no lesson the US learnt from similar overthrows in the past, but again this is Trump. The country can get so unstable that by the time Marco start giving out "legitimate" orders, there will be 30 different groups fighting and killing each other. True unchecked anarchy. So what's then? Boots on ground. Are we still in the spirit of sacrificing 150,000 American soldiers in the name of freedom, like we did in Iraq? When we kicked out Russians from Middle East we were not aware they kept islam jihadists at bay, then Al Quaida came to live and we all now how it ended.
I wasn't even thinking about the drugs. Is that a real thing? North Korean nuke isn't a real concern.
Iraq had no goal. The stated reason was WMDs and 9/11, so bogus and unrelated. Stability wasn't our concern either, I mean we funded Saddam Hussein to begin with. US companies did set up oil drilling, but I really don't think the driving motivation was oil, otherwise we'd have gone to Venezuela first.
Afghanistan has no oil. Iraq does, but the US showed no interest in taking it for decades. It was most likely pushed by our "greatest ally" there who also has no oil.
The Kurds are our greatest ally in Iraq and they most definitely have lots of oil in addition to letting US operate on their territory in exchange for protecting the oil interests. I suppose you could say that's not us taking the oil but we still get value like we had taken the oil and provided fair market rate to host bases in exchange.
I said fair market rate to host bases. Saddam was definitely not leasing us military at fair market rate in Iraq (or Syria for that matter, where Kurds also host US base).
> I'm surprised no lesson the US learnt from similar overthrows in the past, but again this is Trump.
Its not Trump, its the US.
Someone always comes along trying to attack/occupy a country. Making big promises.
Years later when nothing is achieved. Someone else will come along talking about how much US is spending, taxpayers dollars being lost, failures etc.
In recent example, Afghanistan and Trump come to mind. Everyone talked about how Afghanistan was a waste of taxpayer dollars. But now here we are.
The only thing which I can say specifically about Trump is that I wouldn't be surprised if the flip towards "Venezuela was a waste of taxpayer money" happens during his administration and he comes out saying "I have never heard of Maduro".
> When we kicked out Russians from Middle East we were not aware they kept islam jihadists at bay, then Al Quaida came to live and we all now how it ended.
I thought the US was well aware of this, since the US was funding the Mujahideen at the time?
Let's not sacrifice anymore Americans in the name of freedom, but the number was substantially fewer than 10,000, not anywhere close to 150,000. Perhaps that many Iraqis died, or maybe even more.
After filing multiple motions and appeals in my divorce case, I fell in love with Bookman Old Style font. All my docs written now that require my signature, are all done in it. I agree with others saying to ditch Times New Roman, give a try to Bookman Old Style.
Supposedly it cost gov 4 cents to mint 1. Does it have to be done with zinc tho? Why not plastic or some cheap material? Although you may be able to 3D print a penny at home (just like it being made from zinc can actually stop someone), but just like with a real one, its not like you will show up at your local bank with $1 million dollar worth to deposit.
Even if they were free to mint they're still effectively worthless trash to most of us. I've been waiting for the penny to die for decades, and it would be nice if we had a functioning government that could handle these nonpartisan issues smoothly, but we haven't had anything like that in a long time, so the rip the bandaid off I say
Zinc is the cheap material though. It replaced copper (except for the foil outer), when copper was too expensive.
If there was a suitable and even less expensive metal, I think it might be reasonable to switch again. But if we have to rebuild coin handling to use a plastic penny, I think it's necessary to consider the costs and benefits of a vastly different material versus the costs and benefits of abandoning pennies.
The other option would be to rebase the currency such that a single penny was a meaningful unit of money again. One potential such way would be to issue new paper notes which represent the old note with a decimal place move such that $10 becomes $100. This has been done before but might not be a great idea for the USA.
That would be a nightmare, you're basically bringing in a new currency at that point because now all cash, every bank account and every price in the whole country needs to change. That's going to be probably hundreds of thousands of times more effort and expense than phasing out pennies!
I guess a reason to discontinue the penny is that it supposedly costs 3+ cents to mint one. I guess a nickel costs like 13 cents, though. I thought it would've been a better move to discontinue printing the nickel then just make all pennies worth 5 cents.
No matter how I tried, Google AI did not want to help me write appeal brief response to ex-wife lunatic 7-point argument that 3 appellant lawyers quoted between $18,000 and $35,000. The last 3 decades of Google's scars and bruises of never-ending lawsuits and consequences of paying out billions in fines and fees, felt like reasonable hesitation on Google part, comparing to new-kid-on-the-block ChatGPT who did not hesitate and did pretty decent job (ex lost her appeal).
AI not writing legal briefs for you is a feature, not a bug. There's been so many disaster instances of lawyers using ChatGPT to write briefs which it then hallucinates case law or precedent for that I can only imagine Google wants to sidestep that entirely.
Anyway I found your response itself a bit incomprehensible so I asked Gemini to rewrite it:
"Google AI refused to help write an appeal brief response to my ex-wife's 7-point argument, likely due to its legal-risk aversion (billions in past fines). Newcomer ChatGPT provided a decent response instead, which led to the ex losing her appeal (saving $18k–$35k in lawyer fees)."
I haven't mentioned anything about hallucinations. ChatGPT was solid on writing underlying logic, but to find caselaw I used Vincent AI (offers 2 weeks free, then $350 per month - still cheaper than cheapest appellant lawyer and I was managed to fit my response in 10 days).
That's fine, so Google sidestep it and ChatGPT did not. What point are you trying to make?
Sure I skip AI entirely, when can we meet so you hand me $35,000 check for attorney fees.
Being a layer or a doctor means being a human being. ChatGPT is neither. Also unsure how you would envision penalties - do you think Altman should be jailed because GPT gave me a link to Nexus ?
I did not find any rules or procedures with 4 DCA forbidding usage of AI.
Will they shoot me in head?
What if I truly forgot the password to my encrypted drive? Will they also shoot me in the head?
reply