SwingingTheLamp

Well, President Musk has been accused of helping Epstein's trafficking, we know for sure that his Oval Office puppet was involved.

Well, you did out yourself.

Assuming they're federal agents, then yes.

We got a Nazi here.

For what it's worth, that's exactly what they said they'd do, and for that reason, in the introduction to Project 2025.

What I know from publicly-confirmed information: Tesla (hence Musk) have access to the camera feeds, GPS location, remote unlock, remote control of the driving at least sufficient to back the car out of a parking stall to facilitate repossession, and, of course, remote software update. The latter could provide full remote access to everything through new software.

I don't see how that would help. In the ideal case of a finished product, tariffs artificially raise the effective price for the buyer; they don't change the math on the cost of production. Usually, they hurt the producing/exporting firm by forcing it to increase the asking price, which reduces sales. It reduces sales because the buying/importing firm has to pay higher prices. If the buying/importing firm gets tax reductions that are directly tied to the tariff, then its out-of-pocket expense hasn't changed, and it can just keep buying the imported product with no effect on its profits. That means that the producing/exporting firm can still sell exactly the same volume of product at the higher price, covering the tariff cost, with no effect on its profits. Nothing much has changed, except a bunch of extra paperwork and transactions.

There's only incentive to move production locally if the buying/importing firm can switch to a cheaper, local product, but retain the tax benefits, allowing it to keep more money. But that means the tariff money is no longer being collected, so somebody else is paying the taxes while not getting the benefits. In short, tariffs can only work by causing pain to somebody locally.

Is there anybody who's done the analysis on his bad it will be? California's online tracker shows right now that nearly every major reservoir in the state is above the historical average level for March 15th. The system as a whole is at over 78% of capacity. The news stories that I found put the releases at of 2.2 billion gallons, which is not much. (The lake near me contains about 133 billion gallons.) They were from Lake Kaweah and Lake Success, both reservoirs which primarily serve flood-control functions.

I'll continue to explain this as long as it's still relevant: People hear words differently based on their beliefs. We hear "law" as rules that everybody must follow. They hear "law" as state power, or agents of the state who wield that power, like in "the law is at the door."

That means we hear "rule of law" to mean that even the powerful have to obey the rules like the rest of us. They hear "rule of law" as the exercise of state power by its agents (police, ICE, ATF, et al.), and they prefer it to be exercised vigorously against outgroups.

JFC you don't even live in the U.S. and you want to tell me that the type of people who would be happy to have American women in the same situation as Afghan women don't exist here?

Who compared the situation? This is about comparable view of women.

I live in the United States. I don't have to imagine, I can see it up close.