The court document filed on Tuesday says Mr Taveras changed lawyers after special counsel Jack Smith, who is overseeing the case, notified him he was being investigated for perjury.
And further below:
“Immediately after receiving new counsel, Trump Employee 4 retracted his prior false testimony and provided information that implicated Nauta, [Carlos] De Oliveira, and Trump in efforts to delete security camera footage, as set forth in the superseding indictment,” the court filing says.
This is so special! This is HILARIOUS! Somebody help me, I’m dying. LMAO
Bloody hell, that guy woke up with a condom inside him. They clearly wanted him to know he was raped. The abuse of power and exploitation of these young men - disgusting
It’s a prop to promote whoever-she-is’s tik-tok channel. If you haven’t been looking out for yourself and constantly overwork yourself… no shit you shouldn’t be doing that. Anyone who’s worked is attempting to optimize less work for more pay. My distaste is for the article, btw. To address your question, it’s just rebranding like you suggested. Why come up with something new when you have the next generation’s social media app and all the ideas that worked on your generation to fuel the channel?
many of the bedrock structures of American government, like its electoral process and its judicial system, its media, its intelligence agencies, are fundamentally and unfairly rigged against him
Typical 80% truth + 20% BS.
Of course he doesn't propose how to fix the issues, just scrap it all and get some 100% rigged for him.
That so many people don't see the parallelism with how totalitarian states came to be, is appalling.
As someone who has made campfires, I can confirm that blowing on a fire gives it oxgen and makes it bigger. Goshdarn windmills blowing on the whole State as part of the librahl agenda to make wildfires around north America.
He's right. The idea of a sub $15k sedan is a threat to the US auto market. Make it an EV to boot and America just can't compete in the free market.
It's a shame that the common person has to get shafted to protect the auto industry and while I have zero sympathy to the c-level management and shareholders, the auto industry does employ many working class folks who could be very much harmed by cheap imported cars.
The major problem here is that China is offering prices below production costs aiming to ruin foreign competition. Once the objective of a monopoly-like market is reached, they can increase the price.
China's domestic market has already seen a heavy price war leaving many EV companies in financial troubles (and, consequently, leaving buyers often without the possibilty of software maintenance and other after-sales services).
Baidu's brand WM Motor, for example, ran out of liquidity last year, as well as Tencent's Aiways. Other brands like Levdeo or Singulato filed for bankruptcy if I remember that right.
The major problem here is that the US is owned by the oil industry and they will never allow competitive EVs to be built here. The US could easily match what China's doing, but those subsidies go to oil instead.
800,000 prison laborers in America that same year (0.24%).
For as flawed as the American judicial and prison systems are, they are not even remotely as awful as China's - and neither is the labor performed by American prison laborers compared to China's slaves. They are not the same. Chinese slaves aren't even given a trial - they are just randomly picked off the street and forced to work themselves to death.
The U.S. as well as Europe should definitely shift subsidies away from fossil fuels to renewables, and their industries could technologically keep up with China's. However, it wouldn't solve the problem here imo, as China has a structural overcapacity across the whole supply chain.
In a nutshell, China will do everything to flood the market with ever cheaper products. Its state policy has always been incentivizing lower prices for larger market share, but this policy has reached unprecedented levels (and not just in EV car market, btw.).
A major reason for this is Beijing's bias against a 'social welfare' state for the benefit of industry subsidies. During the pandemic, the government provided high company subsidies to keep people employed, but no household support (which left and is still leaving domestic consumption low). The federal and local governments provided their subsidies irrespective of firms' profitability. Knowing that the Chinese state-planned system traditionally rewards the mentioned scale of business over financial health, firms increased their production capacities even more, hoping to compensate lower margins with volume.
The result is now a massive and increasing overcapacity that can't be absorbed by the domestic market.
One last difference [between Chinese subsidies compared to U.S. and European subsidies] is how much support central and local governments have given failing enterprises with little consideration of profit and efficiency. In addition to generous credit and tax support measures, struggling companies were granted credit forbearances during COVID to help them face liquidity crunches and operational disruptions [while private household received nothing, leaving domestic consumption low]. Government support and prevention of market exit boosted the number of loss-making companies [...]. In a crowded environment, with loose budget constraints, firms lowered prices and accepted razor-thin margins to retain market share. Perversely, it also pushed them to build additional capacity in hopes of offsetting lower margins with higher volumes, and because they knew from prior episodes that if authorities ultimately forced a market consolidation, survival would be determined based on scale, not financial health.
[...]
Chinese firms are still using overseas markets to make up for lower prices, margins, or even losses on the China market. But this China-world price discrepancy also means that Chinese firms could lower their export prices further in the future to gain market access, weed out competitors, or make up for new tariff barriers in the EU or the US.
According to DiPippo et al. (2022) and recent OECD studies, the industrial subsidies in China are at least three to four times or even up to nine times higher than in the major EU and OECD countries. According to a very conservative estimate, industrial subsidies in China amounted to around EUR 221 billion or 1.73% of Chinese GDP in 2019. According to recent data of 2022, direct government subsidies for some of the dominant Chinese manufacturers of green technology products had also increased significantly - the electric car manufacturer BYD alone received EUR 2.1 billion [in 2022, which is up from just EUR 220 million in 2020].
We have been observing a massive price war within China's domestic EV market for some time. Many EV car producer have already filed for bankruptcy or are on tbe bring of collapse. Consequently, many Chinese customers are unable to access after-sales and software maintenance services.
How many times do we need to bail this industry out? Detroit's problems are entirely the fault of its own short-sighted greed. They've deliberately chosen not to produce affordable sedans, instead focusing only on super expensive giant luxury vehicles. This has even happened before. The exact same thing happened back in the 80s with the Japanese car companies. Toyota and Honda ate Detroit's lunch because Detroit had become complacent and greedy.
To be fair, the EV market is already somewhat reliant on slave labor in Xinjiang, but Chinese companies especially-so for obvious reasons. Buying cars from Chinese companies means there's basically no ability to pressure them out of using Xinjiang-sourced lithium.
The Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act in the US actually bans import of products by companies in Xinjiang that can't prove they don't use forced labor in their supply chains, so this isn't a hypothetical harm reduction, either.
How the fuck an immigrant became a republican? His name looks like an Indian. If republican people have absolute power these kind of people won’t even be able to touch their foot in the USA.
You can’t run for president if you’re not a natural-born US citizen. His name doesn’t mean he was born elsewhere. If the idea is that he’s a second or more generation immigrant, so is everyone that isn’t a First Nations citizen.
But yeah, anyone part of a group the Republican party hates (POC, LGBTQ+, working class, etc) that supports the party has some bizarre cognitive dissonance going on.
Because he does not believe in anything he says, he’s just trying to bank on the votes of morons who believe in that bullshit. Look up for his history, he’s an expert on banking on idiots.
Dude, he was born in Cincinnati. It’s not even weird for a Cincinnatian to have an Indian af name and immigrant parents. Unfortunately it’s also not weird for such Cincinnatians to be republicans.
He's not an economist, so I'd be healthily skeptical of this exact economic solution. You should however be very concerned about his opinions on where AI is going that it may necessitate this.
It's kind of curious that the headline here is "UBI" given that he mentions AI poses an extinction-level risk.
It's incorrect to assume he doesn't have any knowledge of economics. If you ever listen to him speak about Reagan you'd understand that yes, he does have an understanding of economics, just not from the perspective of someone brainwashed by the system.
The process fueling Capitalism is workers making money to pay for goods and services. Once you automate a certain unknown % of the work force, the engine shuts down; Capitalism will have destroyed itself via automation. Germany during the hyperinflation of the 20's only reached 30-40% unemployment before fascist dictatorship. Fascism is currently rising around the world due to wealth inequality and Capitalism's exploitation of people and the environment.
The only solution that could possibly make any sense while maintaining Capitalism is UBI. Could you provide any solution that doesn't involve mass murder or starvation of the unemployable? I have yet to see any solution from anti-UBI commenters in almost 2 decades.
I agree we need ubi or something more dramatic but there's been various decent arguments for how things could work without it.
The most popular is probably a continuation of what happened all through the rest of the industrial revolution. Like how the price of cloth fell when autolooms took peoples jobs, this caused demand to increase and created whole new industries - fashion, fashion blogging, etc, etc. It's easy to think that there's nothing new left but that's because new things are harder to imagine.
There's also a lot of talk about a return to more localized business models, the falling cost of services resulting in smaller communities being able to be self sufficient. The same logic goes on a larger scale also, governments able to offer more complete services at much lower prices reduces the cost of living and avoids the privation and poverty which caused such unrest in previous eras of low employment. Higher standards of living and more opportunities to engage meaningfully with the world or enjoy distractions will result in less political urgency, especially as solutions roll out globally reducing pressures that cause migration, etc.
The doomer model pushed by tabloids and drama merchants just hand waves away everything that doesn't satisfy their urge for bad news, they want us to imagine a world where hyper efficient robots have stolen everyone's jobs but it's 1925, we're suffering after a failed world war and there's no bread... it makes no sense.
We can already see the effects of technology making life cheaper, even this international conversation would have been too expensive for me to participate in fifty years ago. Education resources are actually free now for all but the most obscure subjects, it's hard to think of anything you can't learn free. Entertainment also, creative tools, all sorts of things are available to everyone on the planet - anyone trying to pretend this isn't a huge thing simply isn't being serious.
There's a lot of really complex stuff that goes Into models for how things will unfold and people talk about it all at great length, I feel a lot of people avoid these topics like antivax groups avoid learning about actual science because they don't want things to be complex, they want to feel special and you can only do that when you're certain of your opion because you actively avoided learning any confounding arguments.
This is a difficult subject, but the inclusion of Meta pushes this towards frivolous litigation, and then over the cliff entirely with Activision.
“Instagram creates a connection between …an adolescent …and the gun and a gun company,”
Instagram sees what someone is looking at and shows them more of it; it's an amplification chamber. My wife gets ads for Harvest Moon-likes, and I get ads for socialist laptop stickers. For this kid to be getting gun ads, he was looking up and liking posts about guns (I train people in firearm safety, and post pictures from range days, but I've never gotten a single ad for a gun on IG), and that starts making this lawsuit about whether it is the job of parents or companies to monitor their kids' online activities. If he is seeking something out that he shouldn't be, whose job is it to stop him?
Call of Duty, a war-based video game with a rifle similar to the one used in the shooting...
...conditioned him to see it as the solution to his problems.
Including Activision is the real indicator of intent here; the rhetoric of violent video games making kids do violence has been debunked time and time again, but Activision and Meta do have much deeper pockets than DD.
So what is the goal of this suit?
Suing DanielDefense could ostensibly be in order to shut them down as a business, thus decreasing the supply of firearms readily-available for purchase.
Suing Meta for money, without actually asking the court to prohibit them from allowing firearms-related content, seems like it wouldn't do anything to prevent this elsewhere unless Meta decides the risk of firearms ads just aren't worth it.
Suing Activision is going to... make them stop making Call of Duty games? One of their flagship franchises? No.
Lewis Moghul, 22, was found to be more than three times the legal alcohol limit
Both Dr Box and Dr Helman believe graduated driving licences could stop between 20% and 40% of crashes involving young drivers, who currently account for a fifth of all road deaths and serious injuries in the UK each year.
If someone is already breaking a law regarding driving, what's to stop them from breaking another?
This isn't a news article. It's literally propaganda to instill support for what they're planning. If you notice, you weren't the target audience. The sob story they lead with, the driver would have been out of any graduated license program already by his age, and later in the article they mention he's already aged out of the group they want to do this to.
Graduated driving licences could see a minimum supervised learning period, curfews and a limit to the number of passengers new drivers can carry.
Of course reckless drivers who were going to drive drunk won’t respect these either, but also these are laws that can dissuade parents from giving/lending their cars. Surprisingly a bunch of parents are oblivious to their kids drinking and driving patterns, but a blanket ruling like this might help.
bbc.com
Top