"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition...There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."
He was under investigation for corruption. The case was very strong given the presence of some "heck yeah we'd love to do that illegal thing you suggested!" emails.
The only reason the corruption prosecution stopped is Adams made a corrupt deal with Trump. Corruption on top of corruption.
What kind of idiot would trust this openly corrupt person with their money? Who thought this was a legitimate offering in the first place?
We need to bring back the concept of seppuku for situations like that. "We have to lie more because it would be too painful to admit our lies" should be a moment that makes any leader question where they have been, where they are, where they're going, and all of their motivations and reasoning. It should be the sort of "what have I done?" moment that sends a person to a monastery, an asylum, or the grave.
Has there been a single public video of an Optimus robot that isn't an embarrassment? Has there been a single public video of an Optimus robot performing a complex or precise task? No, scooping popcorn at the Tesla diner isn't a complex or precise task...it wasn't very good at that in the videos I saw either, and it seemed they only had it doing that job for a short amount of time. If we're that close to consumer robots, why isn't Tesla (or other Musk companies) increasingly using them internally? Seems like it'd be a great way to prove the potential while working through the kinks.
It'd be exciting if there was any actual detectable signal of a product worth buying.
Also an insurance company that A.M. Best rates B+. Which is fine, but when buying insurance I want to make sure that my company can weather major catastrophes.
Because the question was what they might be charged with, not what they did.
Did you expect the government to charge people in good faith? It doesn't matter it if it's true or not, even putting them in the slammer for a long time while awaiting trial and forcing them to hire expensive attorneys is a win.
No, I don't expect the Trump administration to operate in good faith.
The post you replied to didn't ask what they might be charged with. It asked what they "plan" to charge.
And you replied with internet rumor nonsense. It's actually fine to say "I don't know" or simply not reply at all when someone asks a question to which you do not have an answer.
Several undercover reporters have reported this. They are obviously lying. If the administration confirms the same, they are obviously lying. Who shall we believe then? The NYTimes?
These "undercover" reporters have screenshots, surely they could show one of actual crimes instead of something that you keep willfully misinterpreting as such. We've already given you the mundane explanation, but it seemingly relies too much on people being able to work together as social creatures and not enough on a technological system.
What this reads as is a bunch of credulous X users trying to one-up each other and looking for reasons that Trump and his cronies are not once again lying to your face.
It is neither necessary nor particularly useful for them to be running plates for reasons you've already identified.
That's exactly what they have done - shared the information pointing to the organized attempt to interfere with the ongoing federal operation. This is a crime.
You keep saying this, but there actually is a legal standard for this, and following people around, yelling at them, none of that is interference with public acts.
> following people around, yelling at them, none of that is interference with public acts.
Physically obstructing them is interference. There are countless videos where protesters can clearly be seen to do this, even as they are then defended as supposedly "merely exercising free speech rights".
Hitler's regime didn't start out making death camps for Jews. The initial plan was to deport them, with camps for holding and processing. That was unrealistic given the volume of people to process, which led to the detention and work camps converting to death camps.
Just saying, similar outcomes could occur here. It's happened before. Their goals being unrealistic doesn't mean they'll stop, and may be part of their justification for doing even worse things than they're already doing.
They should have said "enough are ok" instead of "everyone is ok".
Unfortunately, there are still enough people who are fine with the Trump / Miller / Noem / Bovino approach to immigration enforcement, or they're not impacted personally enough to make them speak or act.
I hope the cartoon villain responses coming from the administration when they're challenged on any of this will get more people to stand up against it all.
> I hope the cartoon villain responses coming from the administration when they're challenged on any of this will get more people to stand up against it all.
I don't think we should expect people to stand up against all of this. Even if most of them don't like it, let's be honest, it's not a dealbreaker for them. Especially if the next election other party puts forward some deliberately hypocritical, racist, out-of-touch elitist like Kamala Harris.
> hypocritical, racist, out-of-touch elitist like Kamala Harris.
Gee I wonder what side of the political spectrum you align to...
I like rule of law and due process. I like the Constitution and its balance of powers. I think that a good chunk of Americans also like these things. I believe the current administration is acting in extremely contrary ways to those things. So yes, I expect more Americans to stand up and speak out.
Many people like this. It's just that the choice, as far as I understand, is not between rule of law and authoritarian dictatorship.
> I like the Constitution and its balance of powers.
And here, frankly speaking, I'm unfamiliar with the American Constitution in these aspects. How does it work? Does it only protect citizens? Or residents too? Does it protect illegal aliens too? Does it protect everyone in the world? Or does it operate on territorial principles, and begin to protect any person who sets foot on American soil, but does not protect everyone else?
This is standard right wing hate-filled drivel, like that peppered throughout your comment history.
Your ilk really are hoping that Trump's authoritarian takeover of the US succeeds, through provocation, apathy or by whatever means, because you're driven only by the pursuit of power to turn your hate into violence against your perceived enemies.
This breaks down when one half of a two party system goes all-in on lying.
Reality has a left wing bias because reality is fact-based.
To take a "neutral" political position in this environment is to accept blatant lies. Journalism should be a pursuit of truthful information, thus being "neutral' politically is untenable if you want to do actual journalism.
It's true that might not always be the best for your subscriber numbers. But some folks do, actually, care about the truth.
I don't think the OP is saying he has an issue with the reporting of facts. I think what he's getting at is that a lot of what passes for news today (especially online) are really just op-eds.
Presenting just the facts is being politically neutral, but only when it's just the facts. Providing commentary on the facts is not. I don't think it's all that crazy to say there's been an obvious left-leaning bias in that regard for the last 10-20 years.
Congratulations, you've bought into the fascists' framing.
Whenever the media doesn't present the fascists' narrative unchallenged, it's declared that they're being biased. Doesn't matter what the facts are, the accusations still come.
reply